Theme: Civilization

  EUGENICS SUCCEEDS – EVEN PLATO DISCUSSED IT Eugenics (/juːˈdʒɛnɪks/; from Greek εὐ- “good” and γενής “come into being, growing”) is a set of beliefs and practices that aim to improve the genetic quality of a human population,[3][4] historically by excluding people and groups judged to be inferior and promoting those judged to be superior.[5] HISTORY The concept predates the term; Plato suggested applying the principles of selective breeding to humans around 400 BC. Early advocates of eugenics in the 19th century regarded it as a way of improving groups of people. In contemporary usage, the term eugenics is closely associated with scientific racism and white supremacism.[2] Modern bioethicists who advocate new eugenics characterise it as a way of enhancing individual traits, regardless of group membership. PRE-WAR SUCCESSES While eugenic principles have been practiced as early as ancient Greece, the contemporary history of eugenics began in the early 20th century, when a popular eugenics movement emerged in the United Kingdom,[6] and then spread to many countries, including the United States, Canada,[7] and most European countries. In this period, people from across the political spectrum espoused eugenic ideas. Consequently, many countries adopted eugenic policies, intended to improve the quality of their populations’ genetic stock. Such programs included both positive measures, such as encouraging individuals deemed particularly “fit” to reproduce, and negative measures, such as marriage prohibitions and forced sterilization of people deemed unfit for reproduction. Those deemed “unfit to reproduce” often included people with mental or physical disabilities, people who scored in the low ranges on different IQ tests, criminals and “deviants,” and members of disfavored minority groups. DOWNFALL The eugenics movement became associated with Nazi Germany and the Holocaust when the defense of many of the defendants at the Nuremberg trials of 1945 to 1946 attempted to justify their human-rights abuses by claiming there was little difference between the Nazi eugenics programs and the U.S. eugenics programs.[8] In the decades following World War II, with more emphasis on human rights, many countries began to abandon eugenics policies, although some Western countries (the United States, Canada, and Sweden among them) continued to carry out forced sterilizations. REVIVAL Since the 1980s and 1990s, with new assisted reproductive technology procedures available, such as gestational surrogacy (available since 1985), preimplantation genetic diagnosis (available since 1989), and cytoplasmic transfer (first performed in 1996), concern has grown about the possible revival of a more potent form of eugenics after decades of promoting human rights. CRITICISM A criticism of eugenics policies is that, regardless of whether negative or positive policies are used, they are susceptible to abuse because the genetic selection criteria are determined by whichever group has political power at the time.[9] Furthermore, many criticize negative eugenics in particular as a violation of basic human rights, seen since 1968’s Proclamation of Tehran[10] as including the right to reproduce. Another criticism is that eugenics policies eventually lead to a loss of genetic diversity, thereby resulting in inbreeding depression due to a loss of genetic variation.[11] Yet another criticism of contemporary eugenics policies is that they propose to permanently and artificially disrupt millions of years of evolution, and that attempting to create genetic lines “clean” of “disorders” can have far-reaching ancillary downstream effects in the genetic ecology, including negative effects on immunity and on species resilience.[12] (via wikipedia) EUGENICS The science is rather obvious.  But…

—“The only necessary policy: Forced sterilization of the dependent sub-90’s would be the only policy necessary. Since 90 floats on the average, this policy would never have to change.”—

That’s called ‘positive’ (or hard) eugenics’. Well, we did it successfully prewar. But the postwar (a)propaganda (b) prohibition on research (c) pseudointellectual movements of Marxism, postmodernism, feminism, and HBD-Denialism are all predicated on suppressing this one continuation of natural selection. The industrial revolution ended it. And that means eugenics is a great filter, and that the end result is extinction.

—“Not only will no one agree to this, but it has to be one of the darkest and most horrific approaches to dealing with ‘double-digiters’. A better way imo would be a 1 or no child policy for welfare.”—

That’s called ‘negative’ (or soft) eugenics. If you need subsidy, you can’t demonstrate fitness.  1-child. Of course – that’s the right policy.  😉 And it’s what’s in our Constitutional recommendations.

  EUGENICS SUCCEEDS – EVEN PLATO DISCUSSED IT Eugenics (/juːˈdʒɛnɪks/; from Greek εὐ- “good” and γενής “come into being, growing”) is a set of beliefs and practices that aim to improve the genetic quality of a human population,[3][4] historically by excluding people and groups judged to be inferior and promoting those judged to be superior.[5] HISTORY The concept predates the term; Plato suggested applying the principles of selective breeding to humans around 400 BC. Early advocates of eugenics in the 19th century regarded it as a way of improving groups of people. In contemporary usage, the term eugenics is closely associated with scientific racism and white supremacism.[2] Modern bioethicists who advocate new eugenics characterise it as a way of enhancing individual traits, regardless of group membership. PRE-WAR SUCCESSES While eugenic principles have been practiced as early as ancient Greece, the contemporary history of eugenics began in the early 20th century, when a popular eugenics movement emerged in the United Kingdom,[6] and then spread to many countries, including the United States, Canada,[7] and most European countries. In this period, people from across the political spectrum espoused eugenic ideas. Consequently, many countries adopted eugenic policies, intended to improve the quality of their populations’ genetic stock. Such programs included both positive measures, such as encouraging individuals deemed particularly “fit” to reproduce, and negative measures, such as marriage prohibitions and forced sterilization of people deemed unfit for reproduction. Those deemed “unfit to reproduce” often included people with mental or physical disabilities, people who scored in the low ranges on different IQ tests, criminals and “deviants,” and members of disfavored minority groups. DOWNFALL The eugenics movement became associated with Nazi Germany and the Holocaust when the defense of many of the defendants at the Nuremberg trials of 1945 to 1946 attempted to justify their human-rights abuses by claiming there was little difference between the Nazi eugenics programs and the U.S. eugenics programs.[8] In the decades following World War II, with more emphasis on human rights, many countries began to abandon eugenics policies, although some Western countries (the United States, Canada, and Sweden among them) continued to carry out forced sterilizations. REVIVAL Since the 1980s and 1990s, with new assisted reproductive technology procedures available, such as gestational surrogacy (available since 1985), preimplantation genetic diagnosis (available since 1989), and cytoplasmic transfer (first performed in 1996), concern has grown about the possible revival of a more potent form of eugenics after decades of promoting human rights. CRITICISM A criticism of eugenics policies is that, regardless of whether negative or positive policies are used, they are susceptible to abuse because the genetic selection criteria are determined by whichever group has political power at the time.[9] Furthermore, many criticize negative eugenics in particular as a violation of basic human rights, seen since 1968’s Proclamation of Tehran[10] as including the right to reproduce. Another criticism is that eugenics policies eventually lead to a loss of genetic diversity, thereby resulting in inbreeding depression due to a loss of genetic variation.[11] Yet another criticism of contemporary eugenics policies is that they propose to permanently and artificially disrupt millions of years of evolution, and that attempting to create genetic lines “clean” of “disorders” can have far-reaching ancillary downstream effects in the genetic ecology, including negative effects on immunity and on species resilience.[12] (via wikipedia) EUGENICS The science is rather obvious.  But…

—“The only necessary policy: Forced sterilization of the dependent sub-90’s would be the only policy necessary. Since 90 floats on the average, this policy would never have to change.”—

That’s called ‘positive’ (or hard) eugenics’. Well, we did it successfully prewar. But the postwar (a)propaganda (b) prohibition on research (c) pseudointellectual movements of Marxism, postmodernism, feminism, and HBD-Denialism are all predicated on suppressing this one continuation of natural selection. The industrial revolution ended it. And that means eugenics is a great filter, and that the end result is extinction.

—“Not only will no one agree to this, but it has to be one of the darkest and most horrific approaches to dealing with ‘double-digiters’. A better way imo would be a 1 or no child policy for welfare.”—

That’s called ‘negative’ (or soft) eugenics. If you need subsidy, you can’t demonstrate fitness.  1-child. Of course – that’s the right policy.  😉 And it’s what’s in our Constitutional recommendations.