On Eugenics

The post on my political resume has prompted a big comments thread on Eugenics. First of all, I would like to tackle the usual Leftist crap about Eugenics. The Left responds to not just any argument about Eugenics, but any argument about race realism or racial differentials in anything, with terrifying screams about Eugenics, usually followed by threats. They often add that Eugenics is a “pseudo-science”. One thing about Eugenics is true whether we like Eugenics or not. Eugenics is not a pseudo-science. We breed bacteria, viruses, plants and animals. Humans are animals. If it’s possible to breed horses, dogs and cats, it’s clearly possible to breed humans for this or that. It’s solid science. Is the breeding of cats and dogs a “pseudo-science”? Of course not. Now that that is out of the way, we can deal with the meat of the argument. A commenter, Scott, notes that China is currently practicing Eugenics and will overtake us in a few decades if we don’t get on the Nazi breeding train too. China is not practicing any kind of real Eugenics. I defy anyone to show me how they are. I feel that NE Asians are superior to my Whites anyway, so there’s no need to for them to improve their stock to overtake us. I’m surprised they haven’t already. I also support Whites making free choices to breed with NE Asians and even regular Asians to improve the stock. I’m even looking into it myself. There is no nation on Earth that is presently gaining a comparative advantage over other nations due to the practice of Eugenics. Name one. When it starts to be a problem, we can start to talk about it. How come the only people who support Eugenics are high-IQ White people who are usually very racist people? It’s not like decent, ordinary, average smarts or non-White people are promoting this. Why should I listen to them? Embryo selection is ongoing and perfectly legal. The eggs of beautiful Ivy League women get $5000 and up. This whole wacky Eugenics debate is based on nonsense. Mainly, that unless we act immediately, dysgenic trends are going to overtake our nation (and I guess our world, though most Eugenicists are silent about the effects on anyone other than Whites). Other nations are practicing Eugenics now (A lie!) and are going to overtake us in the future unless we act right this minute. Eugenics hysteria is all based on the future. Guess how long Eugenics has been based on the future? Since it’s inception! They’ve been railing about future dysgenic trends for 100 years, trends that have yet to even show up anywhere! The truth is that there are no proven dysgenic effects occurring anywhere on Earth at this moment. One might suspect that there would be, genetics being what they are, but it seems that humans still select for positive qualities and de-select for negative qualities, just as Darwinism would suggest that we do. I assume even over in Africa mass genocides like wars and AIDS may be having eugenic and not dysgenic effects. Most Africans with 1/2 a brain would try to avoid one of their insipid wars, and it’s quite possible that in any war, the stupider soldiers die more and the smarter soldiers survive more. It’s also quite possible that in Africa, the stupider you are, the more likely you are to get AIDS. Extremely harsh and deadly conditions anywhere tend to favor brighter folks who figure out how to survive. This probably goes for South Asia and other places with mass starvation too. Repeat after me: Dysgenics is not occurring anywhere on Earth! Proponents of Dysgenics Theory are asked (Nay, demanded!) to name one place on Earth that is becoming stupider, more criminal or less fit due to dysgenic breeding. You can’t prove it, can you? IQ’s are going up all over the world. From what I can tell, in the West anyway, crime rates are declining. People are getting more educated, not less. Heritable disabilities are declining. People are living longer and in general seem to be getting healthier. All of this positive stuff flies in the face of the lies of the Dysgenics Crowd. Dysgenics is an interesting theory, but until you can show us a case of one nation on Earth getting damaged by dysgenic breeding, it’s all a bunch of talk with no examples to back it up. IOW, it’s not a problem. Eugenics has nothing to do with my complaints about the demise of the California of my youth. The California that I grew up with was 20-30 If you don’t believe me, study the Gold Rush. Except for the Japanese, all those groups have been here from the start, and the Japanese started coming as early as the 1920’s. I object to seeing my state going from 75 Commenter Mort Goldman, a well-known actor, says he would support paying people with high IQ’s to have kids, and he says that Singapore does this right now. The Left, and society in general, will never get on board with even the most reasonable Eugenics that Mort supports. It will never happen. As America becomes less White, the theory gets more and more doomed. Any US Eugenics project would reward Whites and punish Blacks and Hispanics for having kids. No way will Blacks and Hispanics ever go along with this. I would support rewarding the college educated for having kids. AA gets you some benefits. BA gets you more, Masters even more, and Doctorate the most of all. We could possibly sell this to non-Whites by phrasing it as the rewards of getting an education. Once again, though, most rewards would go to Whites, and Blacks and Hispanics would get comparatively little. I can see the protests already. Truth is that Nazis ruined this Eugenics stuff at least for the moment and for the foreseeable future. The fact that most Eugenicists are viciously racist Whites makes the theory not only unpalatable but even less likely to fly, much less get off the ground. I’m fascinated by the fact that so many Eugenicists are Holocaust Deniers, Holocaust Deniers in general being neo-Nazis of one sort or another. The Holocaust, in exterminating the Jews, the best and brightest of Europe, was one of the most profoundly dysgenic acts in modern history. How so many Eugenicists support the most outrageously dysgenic act of the 20th Century is a mystery, but once again implies that the “humans” who support Eugenics, if not the theory itself, are no good. That’s all there is to it. It doesn’t matter if Eugenics is a good idea or not. It won’t fly in a democracy. You could probably only put it in a dictatorship.

Please follow and like us:
Tweet 20

29 thoughts on “On Eugenics”

  1. “I feel that NE Asians are superior to my Whites anyway”
    No, they definitely aren’t. They are by and large a bunch of copycat automatons whose current prosperity (for some; many NE Asians still live in poverty not found in many Western countries) is based upon hawking cheaply made junk to Western countries – most are also blind conformists, lack creativity, and cannot even feed their overpopulated lands without Western support or Western-invented technologies. They also have almost zero respect for their environment – large portions of Asia are uninhabitable or soon will be because of their inability to control their population; they also seem to lack the foresight to plan for future environmental sustainability.
    “They’ve been railing about future dysgenic trends for 100 years, trends that have yet to even show up anywhere!”
    Of course dysgenic trends are already affecting many places…you live in California…look around you, especially as it relates to the Hispanic population which has exploded over the past 40 years. That’s dysgenics in action.
    100 years is too short a span of time for eugenics to be effectively instituted – it would take several hundred years for the full positive effects of eugenics to be felt.
    On the other hand, dysgenic trends occur MUCH more quickly – think about it: dysgenics is cliff diving while eugenics is mountain climbing – falling off a cliff is very easy and you hit rock bottom quickly and without effort; however, climbing a mountain is much more arduous and takes more time and energy.

  2. The growth of the Hispanics in California is due almost exclusively to mass immigration, and almost all of that is due to illegal immigration. We never had much of a problem with these people in this state since its inception until the 1980’s when the mass illegal immigration flooded in. Immigration isn’t dysgenics. Dysgenics means that less fit people are breeding more than more fit people and this is having obvious effects on a nation – the crime rate is going up, people are less educated, less capable, IQ’s are going down. None of this is occurring. I don’t even think the crime rate is going up in this state – I think it’s declining.
    Pure dysgenics means that stupider or more criminal or defective people are making more babies than smarter, more law abiding and more together people, and this bad breeding is damaging society by lowering IQ, increasing the crime rate or breeding more screwed up people. I don’t really think this is occurring anywhere on Earth.
    You show no evidence that dysgenics is easier than eugenics. I think that both can occur in a short period of time. Wars and mass diseases may cause eugenic effects very quickly. You have not shown us that this falling off a cliff of dysgenics is occurring anywhere on Earth. My point is that Dysgenicists have been railing about dysgenics for 100 years now and it’s never shown up anywhere. It’s always “right around the corner.” Right. So when is it supposed to show up anyway.
    Don’t confuse dysgenics and immigration, they have nothing to do with each other. Dysgenics is all about breeding and breeding only.
    I do worry about future dysgenic effects of mass importation of relatively low IQ and excessively crime prone illegals from Mesoamerica. It’s not a racial thing. There are millions of excellent Hispanics in Latin America who would benefit our nation. I want quality immigrants only from Mesoamerica. That means more screening. For the same reason I want to set Puerto Rico free. Far too many low quality Puerto Ricans are coming in here. Puerto Ricans can come on in, but they need to be screened for quality. It’s not about race, it’s about quality.

  3. Dear Robert
    If women with college degrees have on average fewer children than women who didn’t finish highschool, then a dysgenic trend is occurring with regard to intelligence. It may be slow, but it is occurring. In countries like the US and Canada there is a clear correlation between IQ and education. This implies that, when educated women have fewer children than the uneducated ones, there is a trend toward decline in innate intelligence.
    I’m not opposed to negative eugenics. I think that it is a good idea to prevent some people from procreating. many people out there produce children who in fact are raised by social workers and foster parents and who are likely to become burdens on society.
    People who should be sterilized are those with very low intelligence, habitual criminals, people who have very serious hereditary deficiencies, people with very serious addiction problems. If 2% of the population were to be sterilized, that would avoid a lot problems in the long run.
    As I see it, negative eugenics and the welfare state complement each other. The welfare state is based on the assumption that the state has the responsibility to insure that even the most problematic citizens can enjoy lives with a minimum of decency. In return, we ask of the most problematc citizens that they give up their right to reproduce. Total reproductive freedom might be fine in a libertarian society and in a world of unlimited resources, but that is not the world that we are living in.
    It is of course a serious matter to deprive someone of the right to reproduce. It is also a serious matter to incarcerate someone or to take children away from their parents, but both are done all the time.
    Anyway, the chance that we’ll see negative eugenics soon is infinitesimal. Most self-styled progressive opinion sees it as racism, nazism etc. In France, they recently changed the names of some organizations named after Alexis Carrel, a Nobel Laureate, because, gasp, the man was an advocate of eugenics. Supporters of negative eugenics are as marginal as believers in racial inequality. In both cases, the politically correct left has triumphed completely.
    Regards. James

  4. I have estimated my IQ to be at only 108, so I am definitely not high-IQ, yet I am for eugenics. Most of the people who spend a lot of time on blogs and spend time thinking about human nature, science, etc., are a self-selected bunch who are going to be smarter on average. College educated women have less kids than educated women. Whites in Sweden have not seen flynn effect results recently. China is practicing eugenics as are we, but we are not doing it enough. I think it would be ridiculous for the government to pay people to get a PhD. The Ph d. in good for research and and teaching, and that is it. Most of the people who really contribute the most to the economy are not in those fields. If anything we should be encouraging more autodidacts. I am too lazy to look up my sources regarding China’s practicing of eugenics, but it is there if one wants to Google.

  5. I agree that it will never happen, at least in the current climate. But I think my idea is the very opposite of racist, even if it will be mostly whites, Asians, etc. who gain from it at first. If the plan is administered w/o racial discrimination (as is intended), the best and brightest of all races would receive the benefits.
    On further reflection, I think there would have to be some–though not necessarily coercive–means of encouraging the clearly unfit *not* to breed. Again, throw money at the problem. Subsidize non-breeding behavior, cut the funds if they *do* breed.

  6. As for dysgenics, it intuitively makes sense, but I agree that hard evidence for it is lacking. It might be true in regard to physical health, as people survive and reproduce who would otherwise have died at a young age. I include myself in this, because even though I appear to be obscenely fit, I had a defect in my innards that would have killed me at about age 23 if modern medical care hadn’t been available.

  7. I have often pondered that the problem with the Nazis was not asking the questions that they did, but by enacting some very inaccurate answers and “solutions.”
    There is a Yiddish expression, “Nobody ever died from a question.”
    Never the less, people are simply petrified to “go there” in terms of eugenics. Well, we have to get over that.

  8. Silver, I have already proven that you Eugenicist Nazis are simply fanatics. For 100 years now, you have been screaming that the sky is falling. Dysgenic breeding has been epidemic in the West since the days of Galton in the 1880’s. The Eugenicists have never stopped screaming about it. The sky is always falling, either right now or in the immediate future.
    The truth is that are no cases of dysgenic breeding having proven dysgenic effects anywhere on this Earth since the days of Galton. Although the theory is compelling and makes sense on paper, in real life it doesn’t even seem to exist. I’m not sure why this is. Perhaps all of the other improvements in modern life are washing out any dysgenic breeding.
    Anyway, dysgenic breeding seems to have a small effect. Even if the stupid breed at nearly 2 X the rate of the smart, the effect in real life is about 1 IQ pt decline. In the most controlled situation, it’s a 4 pt decline, but this will never show up.
    So the truth is that this whole matter is a whole great big to-do about nothing. There are no proven negative effects due to dysgenic breeding occurring in the US, or anywhere, nor have there ever been. But that doesn’t stop Eugenicists from screaming from the rooftops.
    Immigration can be seriously dysgenic though, and that is what we are doing now. Illegal immigration is importing millions of low IQ, ignorant, crime-prone Mesoamericans into our land, and the effect is clearly dysgenic. It might even be lowering the national IQ a bit. I have nothing against taking quality immigrants from anywhere, including Latin America.
    Dygenics is NOT occurring! IQ is rising. Health is improving. Life expectancy is increasing. Crime is declining.
    I don’t have any explanation. Perhaps any dysgenics due to breeding is so small that it cannot even be seen. Perhaps small dysgenic effects are being washed out by the large improvements in our lives.
    Anyway, Ancient Rome is estimated to have had a 2 X morons to brains dysgenic effect for its entire existence. It didn’t stop it from being the greatest society that ever lived.
    Idiots around here already know how stupid it is to have lots of kids and how expensive kids are. Doesn’t stop em from popping em out like rabbits. Dumb people have lots of kids in the US precisely because they are idiots. That’s not really curable with exhortations and lectures.
    Your Eugenics program would disproportionately target Blacks and Hispanics for sterilization while allowing Whites to go ahead and breed. No way on fucking Earth will this happen. Maybe in the 90% White US of 1962, but not in 65% White Obamaworld of 2009. Give it up man. It’s fucking DOA man, just like White nationalism and all your other crazy pipe dreams.
    There is already Eugenics happening in the US and in most other sane countries, but it’s not the kind you like. It’s just sterilizing retards, genetic counseling, etc, abortions of damaged fetuses, etc. It’s happening in the US as much as China. Rich people are buying sperms and eggs from banks to create superbabies. All the power to em.
    You’re like a raving madman in the desert screaming that the world is about to end. Dysgenics in the West or anywhere is simply not a problem.

  9. Silver, you’re a one track record.
    We can convince low IQ Blacks and Hispanics to give up breeding and their dumbass communities will see them as “heroic.” LOL! You can’t even convince White people to stop doing this, how will convince the folks you want to sterilize? LOL! We can convince Blacks and Hispanics that mean IQ of a nation is meaningful and something to strive for. LOL! We can’t even convince Whites of this.
    I don’t understand you. Do you live here in the US? I know you bash me every time I say this, but I live here on the ground here in California, and I’ve been talking to regular humans about these things for years now, and I assure you there is zero support for any of this shit.
    Your average White cares nothing about IQ and is hostile to the very notion. Guess what? Scott’s not your average White. He’s a White nationalist. Of course he gets an erection anytime someone says the word IQ. All White nationalists do. Your average Black and Hispanic doesn’t even know what IQ means, and when you explain it to them, they act indifferent or vaguely hostile.
    I only know one person in my entire meatspace who cares about race and IQ or about IQ period. A high-IQ White nationalist guy who is a vicious and virulent racist. These guys are as rare as 4 leaf clovers around here. I keep telling you people are indifferent to hostile about this shit, and you keep screaming at me. Am I wrong? What’s your problem man? I’m reporting the situation on the ground.
    Your whole line goes nowhere, and that’s why I’m starting to delete your posts. You scream and yell that White nationalism and Eugenics are right around the corner, and you can get majority support for it tomorrow.
    That’s makes me laugh so hard I can’t even type, and then you start screaming again. Then it goes on and on. The conversation is a fucking one track record and we’re not accomplishing anything but screaming at each other. WTF, dude? Give it up. Move to Idaho or Iceland and go make your White-world somewhere. No way are you gonna convince the majority.

  10. James Schipper: “If women with college degrees have on average fewer children than women who didn’t finish high school, then a dysgenic trend is occurring with regard to intelligence.”
    Yes, if I.Q. is primarily genetically determined. But it
    probably isn’t.

  11. Has anyone read Richard Lynn’s book on dysgenics?
    Titled: Dysgenics
    review here:
    After reading several reviews I concluded that no one can have a quality opinion about this subject without reading this book. It appears to be THE definitive work, arguing the affirmative (i.e. that dysgenics is real and ongoing). I have not read it myself, as it is expensive, and my U library does not have it (or does have it but it is missing and has not been replaced).

  12. Alan, that book is horrible. It’s the same old Dysgenics bullshit these maniacs have been screaming about from Day One. Dysgenics is happening right now, and we need to do something about right now since the sky is falling.
    He’s also wildly pro-Eugenics, he says Eugenics is happening right now and there is nothing we can do about it, and he predicts a wild wave of Eugenics in the future.
    It’s not a good book at all, and Lynn is a nut, a dishonest scientist who fudges figures to fit his stupid theories, and furthermore, he’s a racist.
    I agree with James. Smart people make smart kids; dumb people make dumb kids. In general. I have a 147 IQ. I haven’t made any babies yet, but if I do, I’m sure they’re going to be high IQ if their mother is not too dumb. Even if they are adopted away at birth.
    One more thing. If I ever had kids, I would support dysgenic trends, just to be a selfish asshole. Life has not been easy for me despite my God-given gifts of looks and brains. The looks are headed out but the brains are still there. Any sane society would have at least given me a chance, and it seems like that didn’t even happened. So I’m resentful. So, really, if I had kids, I would want my high-IQ, good looking kids to compete against a world of homely dummies, thereby making my high-IQ, beautiful kids that much more desired, and making their lives that much easier than mine. I’m a selfish shit, huh?

  13. Furthermore, Lynn’s entire book is based on a massive lie. There is no dysgenic trend observable in the West, or anywhere else. There is no genetic deterioration occurring in the West, or anywhere else. Lynn fudges facts and figures and makes up a bunch of lies to construct his case. One of his favorites is that IQ is declining! Oh really now! That’s news to me and everyone else.
    Richard Lynn is a liar! There’s no evidence for any of his outrageous conclusions.

    1. “Furthermore, Lynn’s entire book is based on a massive lie. There is no dysgenic trend observable in the West, or anywhere else. There is no genetic deterioration occurring in the West, or anywhere else. Lynn fudges facts and figures and makes up a bunch of lies to construct his case. One of his favorites is that IQ is declining! Oh really now! That’s news to me and everyone else.”
      To see that dysgenics is occurring, you only need to believe two things.
      1) IQ is heritable
      2) The stupid are breeding more than the smart.
      Both are demonstrably true. It’s weird that you accept the science for eugenics, but not the exact same logic that shows things are going in the wrong direction.
      Here’s my review of Lynn’s book
      As for your claim that China is not practicing eugenics, they don’t have as a robust a program as I would like but good breeding is state policy.

  14. Ok Silver, I admit it, sort of. Eugenics is a damn good idea. Of course it is. The idea that totally moronic Blacks, Indians and Hispanics have 5-10 kids by about as many “men”, are still single, and of course produce a bunch of mostly fucked up kids, is outrageous. In Whites even, the worst of us have the most kids, and the best of us (like me) have zero. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that that sounds like an extremely bad idea. It is a bad idea. A really bad idea!
    OTOH, as I noted above, there is a part of me that wants to keep the brains, the babes and the hunks limited so they could at least have a chance at some of the fun I had, and I wish for bright people like me to have less smart people competing with them, so it’s easier for them to reap the rewards they deserve.
    As a culture, we don’t give a flying fuck about brains. I know several people other than myself who have IQ’s over 140. They’ve been trying their whole lives for success and they have nothing to show for it. They’re now in their 40’s. Any sane society would snap everyone with a superior IQ who is moderately functional and responsible and put them to work for society somehow.
    Our capitalist society spits on brains. That shows me right there what a pile of shit capitalism is. Socialist countries marked these people with tests early on, recognized their extreme value to society, and groomed them to serve society in this or that way. Any society that wastes its brightest members deserves to go down in flames.
    Admit it silver, capitalism is shit. If a capitalist can’t make money on it, stomp it like a frog on the ground until it’s dead. In 2009, we call that advanced civilized behavior. Bull fucking shit.

  15. Bob, all your ranting against Lynn might be right. I have not read Lynn’s book. But here’s the key question: Have YOU read it? Is your view based on direct exposure?
    I take Lynn’s book to be the definitive contemporary statement on the subject — as persuasive and scientific as is possible (which might not be saying much, but again, one must have actually READ it to say). I would like to see it and judge for myself.
    I partially agree with what you say about Lynn. But: he is an odd bird, and whatever his (obvious) biases, he has done SOME very good work. One thing I can say for certain: he is not an idiot, and his Dysgenics book is unlikely to be pure rubbish.

  16. No, Richard Lynn is a charlatan. He’s the one who posits an inverse relationship between brain and penis size IIRC. That tells me something about him, at least how large he thinks his brain is, and how small his penis must be.

  17. To Mort Goldman:
    “No, Richard Lynn is a charlatan. He’s the one who posits an inverse relationship between brain and penis size IIRC.”
    No that was attributed to Philippe Rushton in a Rolling Stone interview in 1994. For the record Rushton claims that the quote: “”It’s a trade off, more brains or more penis. You can’t have everything.” is a fabrication. That said apparently Rushton does have a lot of interest in sexuality as it relates to intelligence.

  18. Further discussion of Rushton and his r/k theory:
    “r/K selection theory
    Rushton’s book Race, Evolution, and Behavior
    Race, Evolution, and Behavior
    Race, Evolution, and Behavior: A Life History Perspective is a controversial book written by J….
    (1995) uses r/K selection theory
    R/K selection theory
    In ecology, r/K selection theory relates to the selection of Traits that allow success in particular environments….
    to explain how East Asians consistently average high, Blacks low, and Whites in the middle on characteristics indicative of nurturing behavior on an evolutionary scale. He first published this theory in 1984. Rushton purports to show that East Asians and their descendants average a larger brain size, greater intelligence, more sexual restraint, slower rates of maturation, and greater law abidingness and social organization than do Europeans and their descendants, who average higher scores on these dimensions than Africans and their descendants.
    Rolling Stone
    Rolling Stone
    Rolling Stone is an United States magazine devoted to music, politics and popular culture….
    magazine (1994) quotes Rushton: “It’s a trade off, more brains or more penis. You can’t have everything.” Rushton says the statement is a fabrication.
    Rushton’s work in this area has been referred to by VDARE
    VDare.com, or VDARE, is a website that advocates reduced immigration into the United States. This includes higher selectivity in legal immigration, favoring Northern Europeans….
    ‘s Steve Sailer
    Steve Sailer
    Steve Sailer is a reporter, movie critic for The American Conservative, ex-correspondent for United Press International, and VDARE.com columnist….
    as “Rushton’s Rule of Three.” Sailer says that Rushton’s comparisons are more informative than many traditional comparisons because they analyze characteristics across three races instead of two, providing a reference point for analyses between two other races.

  19. Robert… I don’t know if I previously linked an article about James Flynn on your old website but apparently he believes in the notion of dysgenic breeding. He lamented that college educated women were not having as many children as women who had not gone to college.
    As for warfare (at least how it is practiced in Africa) having a eugenic effect..? Think a little bit about that.. often the intellectual class have been the victims of warfare. (a few examples that immediately come to mind are the Jews of Europe in WWII, almost anyone with education in Pol Pot’s Cambodia, the Chinese in Indonesia in the 1960s (and more recently in the 90s..) ) Do you think the slaughter of Tutsis by Hutus in Rwanda have a eugenic effect..?

  20. Ahhh here’s a reference to Flynn’s comments:
    “He is not afraid to offend. In July, when a journalist asked him about New Zealand census figures showing that less-educated women were bearing more children, he said the trend would exert downward pressure on average intelligence–just as average heights would fall if short people had more children than taller ones”

  21. Hey for more on how racist Darwin was and his connection to eugenics and how eugenics is being used today to target African Americans- Check out a new film called: maafa21. It is stunning and well documented and I highly recommend it ! http://www.maafa21com to view a trailer !

  22. High IQ people have an fertility rate of around 1,5 in america, so its not that low compared to other americans. Its only really smart and dumb people that matter, the rest are wash. The empirical data fits perfectly with my views on IQ. But it could also be becuase dysgenics isnt that big as reported by the doomsayers.
    As ive said in the past, Polygenic structures of genes with small effect that likely have reaction norms, epigenetics, prenatal epigenetics and interaction makes it hard to see any trends withough intense amounts of knowledge. If we had that knowledge about the genetic architecture we might as well just know how to artificially implant artificial transistors in our brain as non-biological ones tend to be smaller and more effective than neuron networks.
    Though i do think there is some additive effect that could come out of selective breeding of normal people, but only an jump in like 3-7 iq points as traits tend to have an low H^2 in non-humans, which i think is the most reasonable analogy as human twin studies are pretty bad. those 7 points might sound good enough, but i think it only would decrase the SD and not make the exceptionally smart any smarter.
    The way i see eugenics working is by cloning humans, as the chinese have managed to fix an chimapanzee clone, which have pretty similar genes to humans. The hard task for the researchers was to make the chimps inherit the right epigenetics by taking an cell from the subject. So to get one clone that is equall from childhood youd just take cells from the original baby. But maybe the baby isnt relevant as the epigenetics making the baby successfull during adulthood might be good to preserve in the new genotipically identical but phenotypically different specimen. Then we raise them in an decent environment and maybe raise the amount of super high iq people by many folds.
    which is whats really relevant, not raise the avarage, but the exceptnalls. This might also be good for the economy as the demand for low IQ people would increase.
    The other way would be to keep shitting on the third world while allowing high iq people to enter. Bassically, you reduce the environmental impact of third worlders by depriving them from consuming. Poor living conditions is correlated with high iq, and then you just take the smart and rich ones. The smarrt and poor ones will keep on breeding as they dont know they are smart until they duke it out on the market, but by then they have already made so many children that it isnt an net loss, just an cap that the 1st world takes every generaition. This wont work for long but it is kinda going on in some areas like americas relatioship to India, China and Nigeria.

  23. I’m fascinated by the fact that so many Eugenicists are Holocaust Deniers, Holocaust Deniers in general being neo-Nazis of one sort or another. The Holocaust, in exterminating the Jews, the best and brightest of Europe, was one of the most profoundly dysgenic acts in modern history. How so many Eugenicists support the most outrageously dysgenic act of the 20th Century is a mystery, but once again implies that the “humans” who support Eugenics, if not the theory itself, are no good.

    Well, those racists would argue that the “bright” Jews promoted so much dysgenics elsewhere that dysgenics against Jews brings about more of the opposite.

  24. Eugenics has nothing to do with my complaints about the demise of the California of my youth. The California that I grew up with was 20-30% non-White or 70-80% White. That felt good, right and normal. In California, non-Whites like Chinese, Japanese, Filipinos, Polynesians, East Indians, South Americans, Blacks, Indians and Mexicans are part of the neighborhood, and Mexicans are part of the family.

    Whites can be racist jerks, but I still have to argue that a non-white living among whites is better off than a white living among non-whites.
    However, though, that’s not saying whites do have a despicable class. In fact, get troubles come about as you try to protect anyone with money (grandparents etc.) because they will swindle, weasle you out of all of it!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Enjoy this blog? Please spread the word :)