[quote]BrickHead wrote:
From what I’ve gone back and read in this thread, although nobody used these terms directly to me, it can be implied, because of what I think and some things I’ve stated here, that I vote democratic, am a f–king douchebag, a person who uses emotion and feelings over logic for important situations, and should be treated with extreme contempt, all because of a few things I vaguely expressed here.
I don’t vote and don’t side with democrats or republicans. I am not democratic at all, and no longer think democracy is a viable form of government at this time.
I might have been lazy and neglectful in some areas of life once upon a time ago and even acted inappropriately on this forum in the past. Those who know me, the ones who I deal with on a daily basis, my family–future in-laws, fiance, friends (some forum members here actually), and co-workers–would describe me as caring, sensitive, hard working, reliable, and that I have a good heart, not exactly characteristics of a douchebag.
Most would also describe me as very logical.
I have no clue why I should be treated with contempt for contemplating eugenics being a sound program for upgrading what is left of our civilization. NOWHERE did I state, nor did I ever think that this would be a menial task, nor did I even say I would be qualified in ANY professional way to enforce or provide for such a program! It would require a great deal of manpower, research, and highly competent professionals. Expensive? Yes, enormously. However, would it be more expensive than the situations we have today in which we have MILLIONS of parasites and chronic criminals feeding off of we working people, providing them–and their offspring–with medicine, housing, food, and yes, entertainment? And not only are we providing for them, they are multiplying at rates far higher than ordinary, good, and working people!
If not eugenics, then how exactly should we go about thinning out our ever-increasing population of spongers and never-do-wells, considering, as said before, no amount of education or exhortation is going to turn them into something they’re not?
As for social engineering, of course it can be dangerous! You know, like how the current social engineering we see today is harmful and degenerate! One can take a walk outside their homes, socialize with other people, or turn on their television or tune into internet social media and get a good dose of it at work!
[/quote]
You obviously didn’t bother to read my edit, wherein I admitted my knee-jerk reaction was a little harsh. You seem like a good guy normally, but you really don’t understand eugenics.
The cost would be prohibitive. We’re talking about screening everyone at birth for thousands of genetics markers that would account for 10% of our desired trait if we’re lucky. Or we could create an expensive (but possibly reasonably so) bureaucracy dedicated to eradicating these traits by selective breeding. But the laws of probability state that eradicating recessively inherited alleles (most of the crappy ones) is exceedingly difficult, and would be compounded by the poor correlation (due to miniscule contribution of each gene) of allele to phenotype (e.g. stupidity). Lots of alleles aren’t “good” or “bad” anyway, and are dependent on conditions. So even if the cost wasn’t prohibitive, it would be extremely low-yield in terms of effects. It’s not like eugenics hasn’t been tried before. And it’s never worked. Because it actually isn’t scientifically sound even if, properly implemented, it might seem like a nice idea.
I think the problem is more social than genetic in nature. Why couldn’t something like this work:
Offer to pay people on welfare extra every month if they accept a reversible, long-term, low-maintenance form of contraception with a high success rate (e.g. Norplant, an IUD). If they have children in a contractual set amount of time (e.g. 3-5 yrs for the IUD, depending on what type), they absolve themselves of any rights to take any offer of money for contraception in the future. If the contraceptive must be removed for non-pregnancy health-related reasons, the contract is ended, but the person retains the right to paid contraception (of a different type) if they choose to do so in the future. Participants must waive their right to sue for malpractice (with the potential exception of gross misconduct by medical staff) for anything to do with the procedure. A penalty for early termination for reasons not related to health would be applied to subsequent welfare cheques until paid.
Or we could just let them do their thing. Somebody needs to flip the burgers.