EUGENICS VS. DYSGENICS
by Ely Harman
Eugenics is the tendency of genes to get “better.” It relates to politics because all policies are either Eugenic, they tend to make genes better, or they are “dysgenic,” they tend to make genes “worse.”
I understand the definitions of “better” or “worse” are going to be a stumbling block for most people, since they seem kind of subjective. But I believe they have more or less objective definitions, at least as related to policy. A policy is eugenic if it selects for the genes that enable the policy to be carried into effect. And it is dysgenic if it selects for genes that disrupt, retard or arrest the policy itself or against genes that the policy relies upon.
E.g. Insisting people feed themselves is a eugenic policy because it selects for people who can feed themselves, and against people who can’t. There is no systemic failure mode. Things only get better over time as individuals who fail to feed themselves remove their failure genes from the gene pool. But feeding people is a dysgenic policy because it selects for people who can’t feed themselves and against people who can feed them (the ability to feed people who can’t feed themselves becomes a burden, risk, and cost, because it carries the obligation to do so.) Thus, the latter policy will tend to break down over time as people who can’t feed themselves proliferate and the people who can feed them are consumed. But a eugenic policy can be maintained indefinitely and be built upon continuously.
Put another way, Eugenia is the gradual, sustainable, accumulation and inprovement of genetic capital, that can be built upon with further improvements, while dysgenia is its consumption for the short term propagation of defective garbage.
Accumulation vs. consumption. Production vs. parasitism. Eugenia vs. dysgenia.
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-21 08:35:00 UTC