Theme: Responsibility

ANSWERING QUESTIONS ON SOFT EUGENICS – THE AUTISTIC CHILD EXAMPLE

—“[“Demarcation between animal and human is agency, not…”] Interesting. So this would make all children non human by this logic.”— @thanos_pope

—“So let’s hypothetically say I have a child with a more severe form of autism. It is unlikely he will ever have full agency. Would P reclassify him as animal? What would happen to him in this hypothetical structure?”—

I have no idea. I’m not making a political or moral statement, I’m simply stating that we use conflation for deception. either one has agency or not. If one has agency one is certainly fully human. If one does not then evolution and parenting failed the transition to fully human.

—Fascinating. Obviously I was not trying to be conflating in my questions. I was asking to better understand where my real life son would fit in. I found you thru the videos of

@JohnMarkSays and liked what he had to say. I am a little concerned with how we would treat my son.”—

The context is in discussing the point at which one has the agency to make decisions in a polity. Would you want him lead a polity? Body or soldiers? A family? Make decisions for himself?

—“You understand my worry Mr Doolittle. Using the demarcation “human” has been done before. And lead to tragedies. No I wouldn’t want him to do those things in his current condition. Neither would i like him to be treated badly as subhuman. T4 program started similar to this talk”—

I understand completely. Although, we have deal with the reality that the reason we are talking about this subject is the utility of soft eugenics(one child, no child policy), and not hard eugenics(euthanasia). Hard eugenics breaks reciprocity. Not having soft eugenics does too.

—“Now that makes more sense. But I wouldn’t remove humanity from them. There has to be a better way. Certainly no citizenship (under your system). But residency and policy on not allowing (though I don’t see this happening for him regardless) procreation.”—

Well, you’re an in-group member, speaking truthfully, not trying to engage in parasitism, but wanting ‘insurance’ from the rest of us. Now what if you’re an immigrant, you want free money, education, but you don’t want pay by giving up your manners, customs, language, religion?

And by doing so you want to impose costs on our civilization’s money, education, markets, manners, customs, language, religion, law, government? Is that reciprocity or theft?

Take it a step farther. You don’t wait until you have sufficient assets, nor do you wait to choose a mate, to pay for your offspring, and because of your bad judgement you place the burden of your failures on the polity? Is that reciprocity or theft?

Take it a step farther. You don’t wait until you have sufficient assets, nor do you wait to choose a mate, to pay for your offspring, and because of your bad judgement you place the burden of your failures on the polity? Is that reciprocity or theft?

Take it a step farther. You and your family are unable to produce your own income, and are dependent upon the rest of us to provide for you. Should you have the right to reproduce, or are you, by reproducing given the unproductivity of your genes – making reciprocity or theft?

Take it a step farther. Your family has a record of not only inability to produce income, but criminal behavior, anti social behavior (alcohol, drugs, violence, promiscuity), or mental illness. Do you have the right to reproduce, or are you, by reproducing, engaging in theft?

Now flip it around. Your family has a record of self sufficiency, achievement, pro-social behavior, and not only mental health, but mental achievement. It’s not-reproducing a loss? No. But it is lowering the talent pool of the polity. Is failing to reproduce an irreciprocity?

Next look to a world where the genetic inventory of western civilization and east asian civilization that we both produced over thousands of years of ‘soft’ eugenics under agrarianism, and capital punishment for anti-social behavior, has been reversed by dysgenic reproduction.

And it is no longer possible to organize majority genetic middle class polities, because the rates of reproduction of the underclasses have reversed our eugenic selection, and ‘economic growth’ making that reversal, is no longer possible.

So what is ‘moral’ when we have through pretense of morality, reduced the developed world to south america, india, and africa – except for the east asians who are not so ‘affected’ by ‘feminine’ preoccupation in political matters.

Nature does not let us have our cake and eat it too.

Unless we stay ahead of her, the red queen always wins, if for no other reason than human genes regress to the mean, and the mean of human genetics is barely able to manage literacy.