Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a “troll” by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldn’t be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg “It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill,” is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points – Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

I believe in disgenics and believe eugenics is the answer

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • I believe in disgenics and believe eugenics is the answer

    I have had this unpleasant belief for a long time.
    I believe it is the defining issue of our time, the time before us, and the time ahead.
    I do not want it to be true. In fact I keep looking for reasons that it may not be true, I keep looking for signs that the trend is reversing or may reverse in the future. Statistics, papers, theorems.

    But there are these 2 simple facts. They are undisputed and the relations they describe are strong.
    • Intelligence is highly heritable.
    • Intelligence is inversely related to birth rates. This shows when comparing countries and when comparing groups of people within countries.


    I also believe that intelligence has a strong correlation with the wealth and general wellbeing of a society. This is not nearly as well-proven as the facts above. Societies are complicated, there are more factors involved (enviromental/cultural) and the sample size is smaller. But to me it is quite clear that lower average intelligence is not just bad for the people on the lower end of the scale: it is to the detriment of everyone. This is even more true if you favor a more egalitarian society (like I do incidentally).

    I do not wish ill on people with lower intelligence. Even if the trend is reversed, there will always be people with lower-than-average intelligence.
    I do not feel superior myself. I have never had an IQ test, nor do I have a high education, so I have no good indicators of how intelligent I am.
    I am not racist (depending on your definition). There are significant differences in average intelligence between the races, but bright individuals can be of any color (some groups just have less of them). I do not believe my own race is superior: in fact it is not.

    The decline in heritable intelligence can be hidden for a long time. Increasingly better sharing of information makes it easier to improve past innovations. Better nutrition, a cleaner enviroment and better education will make people smarter. Increasingly complex societies with more specialization will bring more wealth.

    (speculative) But if trends continue societal regression will strike at one point, probably triggered by enviromental factors like we've seen with the Romans or the Mayans, among many other civilizations. At that point society becomes less complex, and the trends mentioned in the previous paragraph will actually reverse. As we have seen in the past this leads to a rapid decline.

    Help from cultural realm is unlikely. I don't see the birth rates of intelligent people rising significantly any time soon. Maybe if our wealth, leisure time, and healthy life spans increase significantly. But that's a big if.
    Help from the political realm is also unlikely. The subject does pop up now and then, but it is highly taboo to discuss policy reducing disgenics (I believe if we want to succeed in reducing poverty, we reasonably have no other choice).

    The only hope I see is advances in genetics and biotech. All parents (well almost all) want to have intelligent and healthy kids. It only requires a slight cultural change. If birth control can gain wide acceptance in a few decades then so can artificial selection. Without going into any of the techniques, I don't see any ethical concerns to the concept in general.


    Thoughts?
    Last edited by erikvv; 01-10-2013, 04:26 PM.

  • #2
    Re: I believe in disgenics and believe eugenics is the answer

    Right now the intelligentand hard working are forced to work to support the rest. The rest have the time to sit at home and procreate. Great system.

    מה מכילות החדשות?


    • #3
      Re: I believe in disgenics and believe eugenics is the answer

      Originally posted by erikvv View Post
      I have had this unpleasant belief for a long time.
      I believe it is the defining issue of our time, the time before us, and the time ahead.
      I do not want it to be true. In fact I keep looking for reasons that it may not be true, I keep looking for signs that the trend is reversing or may reverse in the future. Statistics, papers, theorems.

      But there are these 2 simple facts. They are undisputed and the relations they describe are strong.
      • Intelligence is highly heritable.
      • Intelligence is inversely related to birth rates. This shows when comparing countries and when comparing groups of people within countries.


      I also believe that intelligence has a strong correlation with the wealth and general wellbeing of a society. This is not nearly as well-proven as the facts above. Societies are complicated, there are more factors involved (enviromental/cultural) and the sample size is smaller. But to me it is quite clear that lower average intelligence is not just bad for the people on the lower end of the scale: it is to the detriment of everyone. This is even more true if you favor a more egalitarian society (like I do incidentally).

      I do not wish ill on people with lower intelligence. Even if the trend is reversed, there will always be people with lower-than-average intelligence.
      I do not feel superior myself. I have never had an IQ test, nor do I have a high education, so I have no good indicators of how intelligent I am.
      I am not racist (depending on your definition). There are significant differences in average intelligence between the races, but bright individuals can be of any color (some groups just have less of them). I do not believe my own race is superior: in fact it is not.

      The decline in heritable intelligence can be hidden for a long time. Increasingly better sharing of information makes it easier to improve past innovations. Better nutrition, a cleaner enviroment and better education will make people smarter. Increasingly complex societies with more specialization will bring more wealth.

      (speculative) But if trends continue societal regression will strike at one point, probably triggered by enviromental factors like we've seen with the Romans or the Mayans among many other civilizations. At that point society becomes less complex, and the trends mentioned in the previous paragraph will actually reverse. As we have seen in the past this leads to a rapid decline.

      Help from cultural realm is unlikely. I don't see the birth rates of intelligent people rising significantly any time soon. Maybe if our wealth, leisure time, and healthy life spans increase significantly. But that's a big if.
      Help from the political realm is also unlikely. The subject does pop up now and then, but it is highly taboo to discuss policy reducing disgenics (I believe if we want to succeed in reducing poverty, we reasonably have no other choice though).

      The only hope I see is advances in genetics and biotech. All parents (well almost all) want to have intelligent and healthy kids. It only requires a slight cultural change. If birth control can gain wide acceptance in a few decades then so can artificial selection. Without going into any of the techniques, I don't see any ethical concerns to the concept in general.


      Thoughts?
      Unless the people we have hired from India (a country with a much higher population/birth rate than the US) is not representative to their population I would surmise no. They tend to be exceptionally intelligent. We have professional employees like engineers and we have production people like assembly line workers and those from India in both (actually all) categories all tend to be very intelligent, many well underemployed for their capability but making much more here than they would in their home country.

      Obviously this small set of sampling is insufficient to make any across the board conclusions, but at least on the surface it would appear that your concerns are not really warranted.

      What I have observed about the US population is, we are consistently graduating classes with very intelligent students but we are also seeing a high percentage of students who either cannot learn well or simply don't try to learn well.

      Intelligence as measured by the tools available to us is designed around what the business world needs to function. Many people see this as biased against some minorities because the questions do not reflect their culture. The problem as I see it is, it doesn't matter how biased it is against minorities, the test is reflective of what people need to know to exceed in our economy. So the issue is not that the test is bad, but rather that the education of those people is sadly lacking. I cannot bring myself to believe their is a racial element of intelligence.

      מה מכילות החדשות?


      • #4
        Re: I believe in disgenics and believe eugenics is the answer

        Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post
        Right now the intelligentand hard working are forced to work to support the rest. The rest have the time to sit at home and procreate. Great system.
        Well, perhaps not that cut and dry, but it does call to question procreation rates, and the fact of the matter are that the less intelligent, or perhaps more properly the people at the low end of the economic scale, are out breeding the rest. Same sort of problem in Israel with the Palestinians, hence they can't become Israeli citizens.

        US birth rates: Baby bust | The Economist

        Fertility and living standards: Go forth and multiply a lot less | The Economist

        But frankly, haven't we filled up the world with enough people already?

        מה מכילות החדשות?


        • #5
          Re: I believe in disgenics and believe eugenics is the answer

          Originally posted by eohrnberger View Post
          Well, perhaps not that cut and dry, but it does call to question procreation rates, and the fact of the matter are that the less intelligent, or perhaps more properly the people at the low end of the economic scale, are out breeding the rest. Same sort of problem in Israel with the Palestinians, hence they can't become Israeli citizens.
          US birth rates: Baby bust | The Economist

          Fertility and living standards: Go forth and multiply a lot less | The Economist

          But frankly, haven't we filled up the world with enough people already?
          (My emphasis)

          The one has nothing to do with the other. It is difficult for Palestinians (if you mean the Arab/Islamic peoples who lived in the area before 1948CE) to join the IDF, but not impossible. The Druze are drafted, Bedouin volunteer, others groupings must volunteer. (There are Arabs who are Israeli citizens - it simply isn't that common - about 20% in 2003, per B. Netanyahu - nor do US media cover the issue much.

          מה מכילות החדשות?


          • #6
            Re: I believe in disgenics and believe eugenics is the answer

            Originally posted by erikvv View Post
            I have had this unpleasant belief for a long time.
            Indeed... you northern Europeans and your master race...

            THERE are some truths which are so obvious that for this very reason they are not seen or at least not recognized by ordinary people. They sometimes pass by such truisms as though blind and are most astonished when someone suddenly discovers what everyone really ought to know. Columbus's eggs lie around by the hundreds of thousands, but Columbuses are met with less frequently.
            Thus men without exception wander about in the garden of Nature; they imagine that they know practically everything and yet with few exceptions pass blindly by one of the most patent principles of Nature's rule: the inner segregation of the species of all living beings on this earth.
            Even the most superficial observation shows that Nature's restricted form of propagation and increase is an almost rigid basic law of all the innumerable forms of expression of her vital urge. Every animal mates only with a member of the same species. The titmouse seeks the titmouse, the finch the finch, the stork the stork, the field mouse the field mouse, the dormouse the dormouse, the wolf the she-wolf, etc.
            Only unusual circumstances can change this, primarily the compulsion of captivity or any other cause that makes it impossible to mate within the same species. But then Nature begins to resist this with all possible means, and her most visible protest consists either in refusing further capacity for propagation to bastards or in limiting the fertility of later offspring; in most cases, however, she takes away the power of resistance to disease or hostile attacks.
            This is only too natural.
            Any crossing of two beings not at exactly the same level produces a medium between the level of the two parents. This means: the offspring will probably stand higher than the racially lower parent, but not as high as the higher one. Consequently, it will later succumb in the struggle against the higher level. Such mating is contrary to the will of Nature for a higher breeding of all life. The precondition for this does not lie in associating superior and inferior, but in the total victory of the former. The stronger must dominate and not blend with the weaker, thus sacrificing his own greatness. Only the born weakling can view this as cruel, but he after all is only a weak and limited man; for if this law did not prevail, any conceivable higher development of organic living beings would be unthinkable.
            The consequence of this racial purity, universally valid in Nature, is not only the sharp outward delimitation of the various races, but their uniform character in themselves. The fox is always a fox, the goose a goose, the tiger a tiger, etc., and the difference can lie at most in the varying measure of force, strength, intelligence, dexterity, endurance, etc., of the individual specimens. But you will never find a fox who in his inner attitude might, for example, show humanitarian tendencies toward geese, as similarly there is no cat with a friendly inclination toward mice.
            Therefore, here, too, the struggle among themselves arises less from inner aversion than from hunger and love. In both cases, Nature looks on calmly, with satisfaction, in fact. In the struggle for daily bread all those who are weak and sickly or less determined succumb, while the struggle of the males for the female grants the right or opportunity to propagate only to the healthiest. And struggle is always a means for improving a species' health and power of resistance and, therefore, a cause of its higher development.
            If the process were different, all further and higher development would cease and the opposite would occur. For, since the inferior always predominates numerically over the best, if both had the same possibility of preserving life and propagating, the inferior would multiply so much more rapidly that in the end the best would inevitably be driven into the background, unless a correction of this state of affairs were undertaken. Nature does just this by subjecting the weaker part to such severe living conditions that by them alone the number is limited, and by not permitting the remainder to increase promiscuously, but making a new and ruthless choice according to strength and health.
            No more than Nature desires the mating of weaker with stronger individuals, even less does she desire the blending of a higher with a lower race, since, if she did, her whole work of higher breeding, over perhaps hundreds of thousands of years, night be ruined with one blow.
            Historical experience offers countless proofs of this. It shows with terrifying clarity that in every mingling of Aryan blood with that of lower peoples the result was the end of the cultured people. North America, whose population consists in by far the largest part of Germanic elements who mixed but little with the lower colored peoples, shows a different humanity and culture from Central and South America, where the predominantly Latin immigrants often mixed with the aborigines on a large scale. By this one example, we can clearly and distinctly recognize the effect of racial mixture. The Germanic inhabitant of the American continent, who has remained racially pure and unmixed, rose to be master of the continent; he will remain the master as long as he does not fall a victim to defilement of the blood.
            The result of all racial crossing is therefore in brief always the following:

            Lowering of the level of the higher race;
            Physical and intellectual regression and hence the beginning of a slowly but surely progressing sickness.
            Volume One - A Reckoning
            Chapter XI: Nation and Race
            Mein Kampf - A Hitler

            מה מכילות החדשות?


            • #7
              Re: I believe in disgenics and believe eugenics is the answer

              Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post
              Right now the intelligentand hard working are forced to work to support the rest. The rest have the time to sit at home and procreate. Great system.
              Oh OldmanDan, how I adore your various astute and elaborate insights.

              Here's mine: you're wrong.

              Originally posted by CalifornCracker
              Unless the people we have hired from India (a country with a much higher population/birth rate than the US) is not representative to their population I would surmise no. They tend to be exceptionally intelligent. We have professional employees like engineers and we have production people like assembly line workers and those from India in both (actually all) categories all tend to be very intelligent, many well underemployed for their capability but making much more here than they would in their home country.

              Obviously this small set of sampling is insufficient to make any across the board conclusions, but at least on the surface it would appear that your concerns are not really warranted.
              I don't know where in my post you read that I think that Indians have inferior intelligence. I either don't believe that or I'm not sure, I dunno. It is not that relevant to my point anyway. I talk about groups and averages but in the end everything is about individuals. And that is how policy should be made as well. Painting groups with a broad brush does not help.

              India is at a point which developed nations have passed already: they are changing from a rural society where heritable intelligence is largely equally devided among the social classes to a society which, generation after generation, is selecting the most intelligent and giving them more education. Intelligent women are going to school in the cities rather than staying in their elders' village. (Not that I'm advocating less education of women. Childlessness is more prevalent among educated women than educated men but men should take as much responsibility for the situation).

              Birth rates in India are significantly lower in the cities than in the villages. I don't have statics for the following but I'd wager that within the cities there is also a significant different between the more and less educated/intelligent. As still a mainly rural society, the effects are not as clearly visible yet as they are in our society, but that's not for long. Disgenics will become a bigger problem in India as well.

              What I have observed about the US population is, we are consistently graduating classes with very intelligent students but we are also seeing a high percentage of students who either cannot learn well or simply don't try to learn well.
              I have explained the shadowing of the problem. The quality and availability of education is still rising, so universities will keep putting out qualified students for a long time. Enviromental factors like less smoking, cleaner cars and less lead will help us as well on the short term. But it hardly changes anything about heritable intelligence. In fact a better education system will make more accurate selections of people and enhance the problem even more.

              What also may mask the problem in the U.S. is absolute population growth. Parents can produce children with higher intelligence than their own. If out of 200M people 10% are highly intelligent and a few generations later its 5% of 400M, that's still the same number.


              Intelligence as measured by the tools available to us is designed around what the business world needs to function. Many people see this as biased against some minorities because the questions do not reflect their culture. The problem as I see it is, it doesn't matter how biased it is against minorities, the test is reflective of what people need to know to exceed in our economy. So the issue is not that the test is bad, but rather that the education of those people is sadly lacking. I cannot bring myself to believe their is a racial element of intelligence.
              That's a huge subject and a bit offtopic but I'd argue that intelligence and business needs are only losely correlated. The very intelligent usually do better as scientists than as CEO's, and the latter is valued far more by our businesses. I'm sure there is another thread where we can discuss this.

              About the racial element of intelligence: it exists. You may disagree with my general point, as my point is extrapolatory and speculative. But anyone who does not see that sub-saharan Africans for example have a lower average intelligence is a blind ideologue. This difference is present across cultures and nations: it must be heritable. This does not mean that some of them can become college professors or even leader of the world, it will just be at a lower rate. That's how statistics and averages work.

              The opposite effect can be seen in other groups, like the Japanese around the world. Japanese came to Germany, America and Brazil as poor immigrants and are now overrepresented in the higher classes.

              But my goal is not to discriminate on the basis of ethnicity. It would be inflamotory and not very effective as a policy. Sure, a this point with the higher birth rates of developing nations you could speak of something like "global disgenics". But because of the increasing development the fertiliy rate of sub-saharan Africans is project to fall to westerns levels in this century. Disgenics is mostly something that happens within ethnic groups, and that is where the policy should be.


              Originally posted by eohrnberger View Post
              Well, perhaps not that cut and dry, but it does call to question procreation rates, and the fact of the matter are that the less intelligent, or perhaps more properly the people at the low end of the economic scale, are out breeding the rest. Same sort of problem in Israel with the Palestinians, hence they can't become Israeli citizens.

              US birth rates: Baby bust | The Economist

              Fertility and living standards: Go forth and multiply a lot less | The Economist

              But frankly, haven't we filled up the world with enough people already?
              I was more focussed on the European situation, where the most intelligent have children far below replacement rates (~75% childlessness among scientists in Nordrhein-Westfalen if I am to believe wikipedia) and the least intelligent are near or above replacement rates. This works like compound interest, "the most powerful force in the universe" as some intelligent individual once said.

              If we decide that some reducing/levelling of the global population is desirable, then certainly we should specify WHAT populations we are going to reduce. Trading a generation of German scientists for a generation of Ghanese farmers does not seem a good deal.


              Originally posted by 18/tsquare
              Indeed... you northern Europeans and your master race...
              This isn't about race mixing, jews or blond hair.

              But consider this. We have a history of fairly quick evolution. Harsh enviromental factors made us evolve to be different than apes and other humans only 50.000 years ago. We aren't stronger, our bodies aren't more resilient against extreme enviroments, and we have only 2 opposable thumbs.

              The enviromental factors have been taken away. On top of that our current culture, appearantly, is working against the factors that made us succesfull. It is like compound interests. Our evolutional history was random but fairly quick to lead us in to the current point. What currently is happening is almost selective breeding. How many generations does it take to see the effects? I'd say we are already at the point where it's measurable. How many more to bring us back 50.000 years?
              Last edited by erikvv; 01-13-2013, 10:31 AM.

              מה מכילות החדשות?


              • #8
                Re: I believe in disgenics and believe eugenics is the answer

                Originally posted by erikvv View Post
                I have had this unpleasant belief for a long time.
                I believe it is the defining issue of our time, the time before us, and the time ahead.
                I do not want it to be true. In fact I keep looking for reasons that it may not be true, I keep looking for signs that the trend is reversing or may reverse in the future. Statistics, papers, theorems.

                But there are these 2 simple facts. They are undisputed and the relations they describe are strong.
                • Intelligence is highly heritable.
                • Intelligence is inversely related to birth rates. This shows when comparing countries and when comparing groups of people within countries.


                I also believe that intelligence has a strong correlation with the wealth and general wellbeing of a society. This is not nearly as well-proven as the facts above. Societies are complicated, there are more factors involved (enviromental/cultural) and the sample size is smaller. But to me it is quite clear that lower average intelligence is not just bad for the people on the lower end of the scale: it is to the detriment of everyone. This is even more true if you favor a more egalitarian society (like I do incidentally).

                I do not wish ill on people with lower intelligence. Even if the trend is reversed, there will always be people with lower-than-average intelligence.
                I do not feel superior myself. I have never had an IQ test, nor do I have a high education, so I have no good indicators of how intelligent I am.
                I am not racist (depending on your definition). There are significant differences in average intelligence between the races, but bright individuals can be of any color (some groups just have less of them). I do not believe my own race is superior: in fact it is not.

                The decline in heritable intelligence can be hidden for a long time. Increasingly better sharing of information makes it easier to improve past innovations. Better nutrition, a cleaner enviroment and better education will make people smarter. Increasingly complex societies with more specialization will bring more wealth.

                (speculative) But if trends continue societal regression will strike at one point, probably triggered by enviromental factors like we've seen with the Romans or the Mayans, among many other civilizations. At that point society becomes less complex, and the trends mentioned in the previous paragraph will actually reverse. As we have seen in the past this leads to a rapid decline.

                Help from cultural realm is unlikely. I don't see the birth rates of intelligent people rising significantly any time soon. Maybe if our wealth, leisure time, and healthy life spans increase significantly. But that's a big if.
                Help from the political realm is also unlikely. The subject does pop up now and then, but it is highly taboo to discuss policy reducing disgenics (I believe if we want to succeed in reducing poverty, we reasonably have no other choice).

                The only hope I see is advances in genetics and biotech. All parents (well almost all) want to have intelligent and healthy kids. It only requires a slight cultural change. If birth control can gain wide acceptance in a few decades then so can artificial selection. Without going into any of the techniques, I don't see any ethical concerns to the concept in general.


                Thoughts?
                My thoughts are that you are an intellectually honest Darwinist; insofar as you would take it to its logical conclusion.

                Even as you find the conclusion unpalatable. You have to respect that much, even though your conclusions are ethically perverse.

                מה מכילות החדשות?


                • #9
                  Re: I believe in disgenics and believe eugenics is the answer

                  Intelligence is defined by each culture, isn't it? For instance, drop a harvard grad off in the rainforests of south america and he has a much less chance of survival than the native people there who live in those forests. Yet he is seen as more intelligent than the native indians. But in reality he is less intelligent if intelligence is a means to survival.

                  Would the world be better off if a few us us were not intelligent enough to discover how to split the atom and hence create the worst weapon man has ever created?

                  For modern society intelligence is judged by how well one brain can learn the things needed to prosper in a modern technological society. For the rain forest people it is the intelligence needed to survive in their primitive society.

                  Intelligence has been over rated. We have used it to begin killing others with stones, then stone tipped arrows, moving upwards to biological warfare and the nuclear bomb. Intelligence has turned out to bring us as many curses and positive things.

                  Degrees of intelligence play a role in the social heiarchy in society. If all humans were in the upper reaches of intelligence who would do the work? Perhaps they would kill one another off as all wanted to be top dogs and would refuse to not benefit from their higher intelligence.

                  Perhaps it is the case of some humans being too intelligent instead of some humans not being as intelligent as others.

                  Yet no matter how intelligent humans become we have never been able to solve the problems that face mankind, we seem incapable of fixing what is possible of being fixed. Perhaps the most powerful force in the lives of man is not intelligence but a deep self centered nature that trumps intelligence. Perhaps real intelligence is the ability to see what human nature has done and addresses it. If that is so, then even the most intelligent is not intelligent at all.

                  מה מכילות החדשות?


                  • #10
                    Re: I believe in disgenics and believe eugenics is the answer

                    I don't know how you're defining "intelligence."

                    there is definitely a difference between someone who accumulates knowledge and someone who knows how to use the knowledge he's accumulated, yet both can be rightly called intelligent. An aborigine in deepest darkest Tasmania has no degree or formal education but if straded on the planes, I would much rather have their intelligence about that environment there with me.

                    I do not equate "intelligence" with "wisdom" or "common sense" but can you have one without the other?

                    And I've read The Bell Curve, and I'm not sure I buy it.

                    מה מכילות החדשות?


                    • #11
                      Re: I believe in disgenics and believe eugenics is the answer

                      Originally posted by erikvv View Post
                      I have had this unpleasant belief for a long time.
                      I believe it is the defining issue of our time, the time before us, and the time ahead.
                      I do not want it to be true. In fact I keep looking for reasons that it may not be true, I keep looking for signs that the trend is reversing or may reverse in the future. Statistics, papers, theorems.

                      But there are these 2 simple facts. They are undisputed and the relations they describe are strong.
                      • Intelligence is highly heritable.
                      • Intelligence is inversely related to birth rates. This shows when comparing countries and when comparing groups of people within countries.


                      I also believe that intelligence has a strong correlation with the wealth and general wellbeing of a society. This is not nearly as well-proven as the facts above. Societies are complicated, there are more factors involved (enviromental/cultural) and the sample size is smaller. But to me it is quite clear that lower average intelligence is not just bad for the people on the lower end of the scale: it is to the detriment of everyone. This is even more true if you favor a more egalitarian society (like I do incidentally).

                      I do not wish ill on people with lower intelligence. Even if the trend is reversed, there will always be people with lower-than-average intelligence.
                      I do not feel superior myself. I have never had an IQ test, nor do I have a high education, so I have no good indicators of how intelligent I am.
                      I am not racist (depending on your definition). There are significant differences in average intelligence between the races, but bright individuals can be of any color (some groups just have less of them). I do not believe my own race is superior: in fact it is not.

                      The decline in heritable intelligence can be hidden for a long time. Increasingly better sharing of information makes it easier to improve past innovations. Better nutrition, a cleaner enviroment and better education will make people smarter. Increasingly complex societies with more specialization will bring more wealth.

                      (speculative) But if trends continue societal regression will strike at one point, probably triggered by enviromental factors like we've seen with the Romans or the Mayans, among many other civilizations. At that point society becomes less complex, and the trends mentioned in the previous paragraph will actually reverse. As we have seen in the past this leads to a rapid decline.

                      Help from cultural realm is unlikely. I don't see the birth rates of intelligent people rising significantly any time soon. Maybe if our wealth, leisure time, and healthy life spans increase significantly. But that's a big if.
                      Help from the political realm is also unlikely. The subject does pop up now and then, but it is highly taboo to discuss policy reducing disgenics (I believe if we want to succeed in reducing poverty, we reasonably have no other choice).

                      The only hope I see is advances in genetics and biotech. All parents (well almost all) want to have intelligent and healthy kids. It only requires a slight cultural change. If birth control can gain wide acceptance in a few decades then so can artificial selection. Without going into any of the techniques, I don't see any ethical concerns to the concept in general.


                      Thoughts?
                      I'm not necessarily going to refute or argue with anything you posted. But you know what they say about correlations....

                      מה מכילות החדשות?


                      • #12
                        Re: I believe in disgenics and believe eugenics is the answer

                        Originally posted by Good1 View Post
                        I don't know how you're defining "intelligence."

                        there is definitely a difference between someone who accumulates knowledge and someone who knows how to use the knowledge he's accumulated, yet both can be rightly called intelligent. An aborigine in deepest darkest Tasmania has no degree or formal education but if straded on the planes, I would much rather have their intelligence about that environment there with me.

                        I do not equate "intelligence" with "wisdom" or "common sense" but can you have one without the other?

                        And I've read The Bell Curve, and I'm not sure I buy it.
                        While in college I was able to regurgitate what the prof told us. Is this intelligence, or just a brain that was better at memorizing? Is intelligence simply the ability to hold in memory information, or is intelligence something different. Surely intelligence as the world knows it is the ability to first retain information in memory AND being able to use reason to manipulate that stored information for a beneficial outcome. But perhaps there is a different sort of intelligence. For instance many new discoveries come from happy accidents in the lab, but other discoveries come when thinking stops and the answer arises without the activity of thought. As if the answer came from somewhere else. Perhaps this too is intelligence. The ability to access something other than stored information. Surely something that is entirely new cannot come from the old, and that dismisses stored knowledge and discovering something totally new. That is as long as the new isn't just a combination of the old. It seems to be these new discoveries that have played a great role in the advancement of knowledge is not simply an accretion and accumulation of the known.

                        מה מכילות החדשות?


                        • #13
                          Re: I believe in disgenics and believe eugenics is the answer

                          Originally posted by Darth Hussein Omar View Post
                          My thoughts are that you are an intellectually honest Darwinist; insofar as you would take it to its logical conclusion.

                          Even as you find the conclusion unpalatable. You have to respect that much, even though your conclusions are ethically perverse.
                          Your last sentence interesting and I think about it a lot. How exactly is it ethically perverse? Is order more perverse than randomness? Is chaos preferable to organization? I guess in some ways it is.

                          I am a humanist and don't necessary see a different conflict in this matter than in many others. Society is a contract. We ourselves decide how to organize it. We as people get our freedoms from it, but in return there is something like having shared responsibility. Part of that responsibility is leaving the world in a better state than when we entered it.

                          I believe that part of my uneasyness with comes from this. I would like to believe, and many political ideologies presume, that all individuals have equal potential. We value meritocracy and the the uplifting of everyone: everybody gets a chance and everyone gets what they deserve. The sad truth is that with all the uplifting we will attempt, not everyone will get a fair shot. People aren't born equal. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try, but we should also realise that we will never solve it, we can only attempt to make people's lives better now and in the future.

                          Another part of my uneasyness ofcourse comes from the taboo and the association with some nasty policies and ideologies. I have delved into some work by current white nationalists and disagree enough that I do not identify with them. I disagree with their general views on white superiority, jews, the media and the left. There are other parts I do agree with but I can say that about most ideologies.

                          (I'll get around to replying to everyone who is on topic).

                          מה מכילות החדשות?


                          • #14
                            Re: I believe in disgenics and believe eugenics is the answer

                            I don't actually believe either of your two simple and indisputable facts.

                            I have known brilliant people born of some real dolts and I have known some real dolts born of two brilliant people.

                            I also see no correlation between birth rates and intelligence. I think that before you go about deciding what to do about something, you should further research whether you initial premise is valid.

                            מה מכילות החדשות?


                            • #15
                              Re: I believe in disgenics and believe eugenics is the answer

                              Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post
                              I don't actually believe either of your two simple and indisputable facts.

                              I have known brilliant people born of some real dolts and I have known some real dolts born of two brilliant people.

                              I also see no correlation between birth rates and intelligence. I think that before you go about deciding what to do about something, you should further research whether you initial premise is valid.
                              There are a number of things which create to the "dumb as a post" syndrome. And it is not all in our country. The Netherlands has suffered through it for the last 50 or 60 years as well. One of the common issues is the use of mind altering/burning out drugs. A friend's son who was brilliant through most of his school life started loosing it as a high school junior. It was determined that high concentrated hash. It has affected every phase of his life, but he did it to himself and I have absolutely no sympathy for the young man. I do have sympathy for his parents. He will never hold a job, or keep his attention span fixed sufficient to accomplish more than the simplest of tasks. I hope the tax payers never have to cover his living expenses or medical expenses.

                              מה מכילות החדשות?

                              Working...
                              X