Eugenics, Race, IQ, Crime Genes, Sterilization, Blah, Blah, Blah

Someone mentioned in another area that too many are interested in race issues. I hear lots of non-scientific comments from both sides: the racists and anti-racists. The racists' arguments are almost all supernatural: blue/blonde/white tone combination are mother natures work of art; all white people are as smart as Isaac Newton; all white people have Isaac Newton brains but apparently the Jews have taken control of their collective brains (a paradoxal claim: if whites are that smart, then surely they can think for themselves and not have any other group control them); all white people would now have multiple phDs in physics, chemistry, mathematics, biology, and neuroscience if not for the all powerful "you know who's" conspiring to make then all all get drunk and watch tv everyday; that the white race must be pure to be a true Aryan race - all whites should be genetically scanned and if as much as .1 percent "non-white genes" are found, he or she must be sent to Africa, etc. Very religious stuff.

I hear supernatural claims from the other side as well: all the non-whites that are doing worse than whites are doing so because the entire white race get together and have secret meetings to find ways to subjugate these non-Whites (known as Critical Race Theory). Only white people are evil and only them own slaves and only them do genocide and all their technology was stolen from colored people and that science is a white conspiracy made to make non-whites seem inferior, etc.

So I think it requires an outside person to look at things objectively: like a Chinese dude for example: me

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

So, I found a collection of different races of scientists who all want to cut out all the bias and political stuff and discuss pure science as it relates to race. these scientists have their debates and data-sharing at http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/e-l/ Anyone can join. but any non-pure scientific commentary is not allowed. Only data, no subjectivity or bias.

I think this is one reason why so many forum owners are very hesitant to allow ethnic debates: there is too much bias, emotion, and "mean-spiritness." But if all text was written in pure scientific data format, most moderators would not even be smart enough to understand it

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

P.S. One member of the above mentioned discussion list is the Jewish Professor John Glad:

http://www.whatwemaybe.org/

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I skipped past all of the scientific data, looking for proposed practical solutions to the problem (I'm sure you'd agree that all of the enlightenment in the world isn't much use without real-world application).

Here's one:

Does this person live in the real world? Who in their right (albeit retarded) mind is going to accept cash in exchange for relinquishing the ability to have children? My guess is: a small minority, ie not enough to have any significant impact.

Tell me, Charles: when all the debate is over and eugenicists have won the argument... what do they propose to do in the aftermath of the victory?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

More illusions of a perfect society.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No scientific commentary?

 

It is telling that even pre-literate farmers and herders were well aware of the workings of eugenics for tens of thousands of years and used such things to produce better crops and better animals over the long generations.

Truly: If it has worked since time immemorial, why can it not be used for human benefit? Or even a simple recognition of the fact that genetic improvement is possible?

 

Why would there be? I'm not a scientist. Care to answer my question?

 

Here is what my country is doing right now:

http://www.amren.com/0111issue/0111issue.htm#article1

 

I am not a Professional scientist either. But according to my world view, non-professional scientists should also discuss issues using scientific data. If they can't, they should learn how to.

 

Ancient Spartans used to breed for physical strength: it worked quite well. I prefer though that they bred for intelligence as well, instead of only desiring to distroy Athens.

 

Clone yourself and pass on your inheritance to your twin!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Sounds most promising. Pol Pot clearly had the wrong idea in eliminating the intellectual elite. He should have started from the bottom up. Anything else would be tyranny.

 

Charles Wong:

Yes, intelligence would be prefered. Although both strength, intelligence, and various other traits together should be encouraged to be bred together if possible, rather than simply individually. A superior human being amongst all the races would be encouraged to develop if across the world people were able to implement this.

I have read some interesting data that the higher average IQ amongst the Jews is directly related to the encourgement of intelligence men to have large families. Doctors, lawyers, accountants, rabbis, et cetera, all were told to "be fruitful and multiply". On the other hand, Europeans have suffered from 1,800 years of many of her great figures not breeding. Few, if any, of the great Western figures had children, including Newton.

 

I prefer to think about good trait selection in eugenics as weeding out deleterious genes/traits rather than for selecting good traits. Get rid of genes that cause people to have IQs that are lower than 100, weak muscles, bad people skills, sociopathic tendencies, brittle bones, immune system deficiencies--anything that's obviously undesirable to the individual and that person's society. Not necessarily selecting genes that cause people to have IQs of 200, super strong muscles, super immune systems. That could cause too much homogenization and perhaps too much unpredictability.

Just get rid of the overtly bad traits--like what dog breeders do.

 

they can . . . with their gonads, by natural means.

 

Let's just put the weak dogs down.

 

Nope, that's not what I'm talking about at all. I'm talking about not letting the weak dogs degenerate the gene pool; this can be done without putting them down.

Similarly, we could pay people to have them sterilized. The government would pay men and women $1,000 to give them a vasectomy or tie their tubes. Then all the poor people around the country would instantly become $1,000 dollars richer. And they would stop degenerating the gene pool. Doesn't involve anything that could be considered inhumane. After all, nobody's forcing anyone to do anything. They don't have to do it if they don't want to.

 

I agree. And the really brilliant thing about it is that most poor people are too intellectually retarded to realise that self-imposed sterility has a cash value (yes, everything has a cash value - everything) way in excess of $1,000. Inhumane? God, no.

 

I wrote a long message about this topic in another thread.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=1203018#post1203018

 

If you're extremely poor, it likely doesn't matter whether or not you realize its cash/societal value.

 

Dog breeders have not been very sucessful at weeding out bad tendencies.

This idea is deeply flawed. Einstien was both extremely intelligent, and had bad people skills. Genes aren't codes for one particular thing, they have complex effects. I think the gene for sickle cell anemia also protects against malaria. The body makes comprimises, what may benefit a youthful body may become deliterious in old age.