We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, in order to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes.
From Buck v. Bell, the 1927 Supreme Court case legalizing compulsory sterilization for the dangerous elements of society.
I generally on principal support this type of eugenics.
Just like what is done with dogs to breed-out all the bad/harmful/ negative traits... only with certain sects of people not permitted to breed.
do show me the allele which codes for the protein which causes delinquency tia
How come people don't troll for intelligent causes? The only political causes I see people banging their heads against the internet about are mongoloid politics such as the American Republican Party, Eugenics, White Supremacy, etc.
>>7 BAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
Anyone want to make any bets on the racial distribution of these genes?
Problem with eugenics is that it can't be fairly implemented,
i mean look at the nazi's, they killed off jews even though jews typically have higher I.Q's and didn't really cause that many problems in society.
>>9
Define "fair." If some Down's Syndrome case with an IQ of 55 says "BAWWWWWWWWW, don't snip my fallopian tubes, I wanna have fifteen tardbabies by fifteen different fathers so I can get a bigger welfare check" then I submit that her desire is UNFAIR to productive citizens who pay the tab.
Now what?
"Fair" should not be in the vocabulary of anyone over the age of twelve.
I also support these ideas on principle, but in practise it's just not as simple.
I was born to a paranoid schizophreniac (delusional, manic depressive, responsibility averse whore), and a druggy surfer who hasn't worked in thirty years. By rights, both myself and my sister should be utterly useless.
Only it didn't work out that way. Both of us have IQs over 160 (unmeasurable in both instances because of perfect scores in specific areas), topped our respective schools, form meaningful, stable relationships and are training to become professionals.
We were removed from our single mother's care at 14 and 7 respectively - prior to that we basically didn't attend school.
The problem with any system of eugenics is that there will be exceptions to your rule, and society benefits from having exceptions both in this sense, and in the sense of base genetic variation. By instigating sterilisation according to the ability of a person to fit into a society, you aren't making the society funciton better so much as you are ensuring that the society will always remain in it's current form.
You also assume that your traits aren't desirable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monoamine_oxidase#Genetics
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/297/5582/752a
|> Violent, antisocial behaviour is just about the only thing that ever motivates short term political change. Without people acting like this, society loses it's ability to react quickly to trends that don't benefit it. If everyone is a well adjusted individual, no one will be the one to instigate reactionary movements. Stagnation will follow.
http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080404/full/news.2008.738.html
|> is likely a vital factor in the success of market economics.
http://www.nature.com/news/2004/040809/full/news040809-10.html
|> Laziness isn't necessarily undesirable. Having a lazy sector of society ensures that industrial relations have a baseline to offset workoholics' influence. Which is a good thing. Fuck you if you dare say I should work more :).
The point at which we mandate which psychological traits are desirable and which aren't is the point at which we cross the line. That is where are altering what society itself will be, and what it will value. That is where the system begins to feed into itself.
Now euthanising people who can't contribute to ANY concievable society in any concievable way (down syndrome, vegetables, being two examples) is a whole seperate kettle of fish which I'd love to shoot in a barrel.
Ohshi. Practice.
i don't understand what you guys are talking about. are you going to kill me?
>>12
"Both of us have IQs over 160"
My IQ is 70. Both my parents sufferred from downs syndrome and several dehabilitating genetic diseases including a gene which makes them more susceptable to skin cancer, cystic fibroris, sickle cell anaemia and a myriad of allergies. When I was born the doctor said I would probably be dead in a week, but I grew up and always got perfect score throughout school and was selected through sheer merit to attend both harvard and Yale at the age of 12 and graduated with honours at the top of my class often participating in lectures with my professors. I also participated in sports and became a professional UFC prize fighter, I later founded my own multinational corporation based on my research into computer science, I then used the money to set up a hedge fund and am now a multi-billionaire.
This proves that low IQs are better than high IQs.
Ironically, even though people with Down's Syndrome have been targeted by several eugenics campaigns, all victims of trisomy disorders are born sterile.
>>16
Males with Down's are normally, but not always, sterile. Females with Downs are often quite astonishingly fecund--and every child they bear will carry a copy of Mom's extra chromosome.
What's your point. You're reinforcing what I said.
>>15 proves that people with IQ over 160 are still susceptible to trolling
>>19
Oh, wait sorry, forgot about my conclusion.
Look, it's irrelevant anyway. You blatantly lied in your post. If both your parents had Downs, then A): The odds of your birth would have been so low as to be negligible, and B): You would have Down - as the world's only self made Downs millionaire you'd be a symbol of hope that nearly everyone would have heard of.
As I have not heard of any self made downs millionairs, so I call bullshit.
ITT it's the trollingest day of our lives so we cover ourselves with trolljuice and troll 4-ch with an electric trolling machine.
>>21
Only someone as rich, brazen and muscular as me would be able to keep my success a secret, thus it's true.
>>21
STOP FEEDING THE TROLL!
SAGE goes in every field.Under your reasoning, Beethoven would never have been borne. Also, many of the causes of high crime have more to do with poverty than with genetics. Poor people will steal and sell their bodies and drugs to make money to eat. period. If corporations don't pay their lower level employees adequately, they dont rise out of poverty. If you live in poverty, your property taxes (which are responsible for the majority of public school funding) are low to non existant. If you have no property taxes, the schools don't get enough money for books or computers. No books in school + being hungry all the time means that school is a waste of time. It is illogical for someone to sit in a building where they are supposed to learn stuff instead of going out and making money (albeit illegally) when the conditions in said room (and in your empty GI tract) make learning impossible. It also doesn't help if your mom and dad where druggies. Theres a huge source of your crime rate. and none of it is caused by genetics.
Western europe lacks the crime problem we have and they don't sterilize criminals or people with genetic disorders. Note that they DO use massive social benefits and welfare to maintain an income floor and maintain a minimum standard of living. Go figure, it results in less crime. Also, we don't call on our best and brightest to sacrifice their lives for this country. If they were really that bright, they would have joined the air force. The army and marines take anyone who can follow orders and shoot. If you are stupid enough to join the ranks of the cannon fodder brigade, you are not the cream of this or any crop.
this brings me to my next point. While i agree with most of what >>12 said,it is disturbing that he feel's it is ok to euthanize people with down syndrome - particularly on the grounds that they are incapable of contributing to any society. For starters, people with DS are easily amused and are ideal for jobs which involve repetative but physically demanding tasks (stocking, warehousing, shipping, demolitions, mining, construction.) Due to their child like mentallity, they also follow orders well. This makes them good infantry men (remember that cannon fodder brigade?). and is it just me or do most of them happen to by physically built.
Im also shocked that the eugenics crowd has not realized 2 major points. 1) just because someone has one negative gene, it doesn't mean that they don't have other important ones. Would you sterilize someone who has genes coded for Aspbergers syndrome who also have a gene that makes them immune to HIV (which is rare but occures when the T cells lack the protien required for HIV to bind to the cell)? Would you sterilize someone who has the genes for muscular dystrophy but whose blood type is O and is therefore a universal doner. further more, where do you cut it off? 2) there is already research to make it possible to remove genes in a fetus. This means you can keep any good genes said Mongoloid has in the fetus and remove the ones you don't like.
Personally I don't think anyone whose household income averages out to less than $20,000 per person in said household should be allowed to give birth. Anyone can adopt but, if you lack the financial means to raise a child, you should not be allowed to have one. This means that single people could give birth if they make 20k a year (which is actually enough to survive. my household income is less than 15k and we survive just fine in a nice suburb in Miami with dsl and directtv so it can be done) and it means married couples need to have a household income of 40k assuming they have no kids. It also means that with each child a persona has, their household income must rise another 20k for them to have another child. This would keep our already ridiculous population down and prevent people from overtaxing our public services. It means poor people cant reproduce and that children will grow up in a home that can provide what they need.
ITT we accuse others of trolling, then cheerfully suggest that Down's Syndrome defectives whose internal organs are universally so malformed that few live past the age of 25 would make fine infantrymen.
The average age for enlistment is 18. We frequently will let people enlist before that (at about 16 with 2 years of boot camp with parental permission). That leaves 7 years of service. and theres plenty of them that live even longer. i never said they would contribute for a long time. but they could do all the jobs that those of us with normal mindsets find to repetative and boring as they usually dont. 7 years of military service is more than most who sign up put in. and if they start working as stock clergs and manual laborers at 16 (youngest age legally allowed, then u are talking about 10 years of cheap, effective labor. personally, i think that is a contribution. It means we dont have to out source that work and the money stays in the states.
Fuck America.
What? There are always outliers. Of course you can dig through centuries of human history and name exceptions--but those are a very few out of the billions of cases that are not in any way special.
Ask yourself which has more value to mankind:
--Beethoven, a guy who made some music, or
--the virtual elimination of all hereditary diseases.
I'm not endorsing or rejecting eugenics here, I'm just pointing out that "tards have good babies sometimes" is a pretty poor argument.
>Personally I don't think anyone whose household income averages >out to less than $20,000 per person in said household should be >allowed to give birth. ...(snip)... It means poor people cant >reproduce and that children will grow up in a home that can >provide what they need.
So you want to be more like a communistic country?
this is just going to end with many illegal children put into extreme poverty (because according to the state they don't exist)
Babies are going to be born with or without the countries approval, and where do you think these babies will end up when there parents have an income slightly under the legal border?
Socialism is the way to go, every man for himself and we pay the state to take care of the weak.
No problem with eugenics here--provided we do it right. Actually look at the genes before you sterilize somebody; don't just clamp them because they happen to be a minority or a retard. That blind, paraplegic, low-functioning autistic deaf-mute might turn out to be immune to HIV. And don't overlook the memetic side of people's identity either; as far as their temperament and ethics go, it's really not as much who gives birth to a child that matters, as much as it is who raises him. Habitual criminals, religious fanatics, and other people you wouldn't want raising your child shouldn't be allowed to raise their own--and conversely, we really ought to stop playing to the paleolithic side of American politics and let homosexuals raise all the kids they want. It'll do everyone involved a world of good--and nothing brings a sick, warm glow to my heart like the thought of taking a conservative chick's baby away to be raised by a pair of screaming queens... XDDD