Was eugenics a good idea?

[EuPromoter]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pgybwk_dp70

This video makes a good argument about why eugenics should come back.

Notice how his eugenics is not racist and is friendly towards all races. And it does not involve violence. People are only instructed to not have kids, which is not inhumane at all. I think this guys plan is very reasonable.

[Claudius Gothicus]

No, it wasn't. That doesn't change the fact that many back then were quite interested in it's final outcomes... fascists and liberals alike.

It's basically a bad idea because we certainly don't know enough on genetics and culture(and how they work together) to decide on their combined effect on social and individual behaviour. So we could screw up, big time.

[SLN445]

Any potential benefits from Eugenics tend to get overshadowed by considerably large moral issues and the potential to everything up, at least from what i remember.

[Kanaric]

Eugenics is a early concept on inheritance and has been scientifically disproven.

Its like discussing the ether concept of space that light is propagated on a material.

[Sphere]

On the long list of powers that should be denied to the government, up near the top is the power to decide which law abiding citizens can and cannot have children.

[bushbush]

it opens way too much possibility for abuse.

[Kanaric]

On the long list of powers that should be denied to the government, up near the top is the power to decide which law abiding citizens can and cannot have children.

It also ignores the fact that two dwarves or two retarded people can have unaffected children.

Eugenics would think that a impossibility.

[EuPromoter]

Please watch the whole video before posting. All of the things you guys said were disproven in the video. Watch the video and you guys will see eugenics is a good idea!

[The Gurkhan]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pgybwk_dp70

This video makes a good argument about why eugenics should come back.

Notice how his eugenics is not racist and is friendly towards all races. And it does not involve violence. People are only instructed to not have kids, which is not inhumane at all. I think this guys plan is very reasonable.

Your forum name is 'EUPromoter' and you are posting links advocating eugenics. In my eyes you may as well call yourself WorldGovernment4Eva and be a willing servant of the Lizardmen.

Three posts young and already I don't feel I can trust you.

[Claudius Gothicus]

Actually ''Scientific Community Customs'' would have you bring your points forward in any way possible, including restatement in both video and posts. The burden of proof is on the one defending a long abandoned scientific theory(for moral and instrumental reasons) not on the already established fellows who have already(more or less) gone through the general axioms and arguments against and for eugenics...

[EuPromoter]

Actually ''Scientific Community Customs'' would have you bring your points forward in any way possible, including restatement in both video and posts. The burden of proof is on the one defending a long abandoned scientific theory(for moral and instrumental reasons) not on the already established fellows who have already(more or less) gone through the general axioms and arguments against and for eugenics...

Watch the video. And I am sorry I don't understand your post please speak a little less complex.

[Claudius Gothicus]

Watch the video. And I am sorry I don't understand your post please speak a little less complex.

How do you expect us to take you(or your video) seriously if you can't understand or refer to simple scientific concepts like ''axiom'', or ''burden of proof'', instrumentalism or theory.

This is a debate on science, or at least something that used to be considered that way, so you better catch up to the terminology.

Good question I will answer that one. By the way anyone who asks me or challenges me on something addressed in the video, I will not respond to. IQ tests would be used Manco. Also anyone who has been in prison, or has a genetic mental illness ect would not be allowed to have kid. Troll, would a troll take the time to make a 10 minute video that was well researched?

Crime is related to moral restraint and ''cost of opportunity'' in the crime... also, with many countries ''hardline'' policy on minor offenses a juvenile might find him or herself in jail for minor stuff like driving past the speed limit or smoking a marijuana joint.

In regards to ''mental illness'' there's no conclusive evidence that points out at genetic factors being determinant, environmental situations might trigger preexisting hormonal predispositions or they might not. See homosexuality, pedophilia(which has been condemned and condoned along the ages) and serial killers, which easily fall in a grey area between genetically inherited cognitive dysfunctions and environmentally triggered inabilities to understand their surrounding society.

[Manco]

So who decides what the (in)desirable genetic traits are, and on what do they base themselves on?

[EuPromoter]

So who decides what the (in)desirable genetic traits are, and on what do they base themselves on?

Good question I will answer that one. By the way anyone who asks me or challenges me on something addressed in the video, I will not respond to. IQ tests would be used Manco. Also anyone who has been in prison, or has a genetic mental illness ect would not be allowed to have kid. Troll, would a troll take the time to make a 10 minute video that was well researched?

[Manco]

Good question I will answer that one. By the way anyone who asks me or challenges me on something addressed in the video, I will not respond to. IQ tests would be used Manco. Also anyone who has been in prison, or has a genetic mental illness ect would not be allowed to have kid. Troll, would a troll take the time to make a 10 minute video that was well researched?

Since when do IQ tests specify which genetic sequences and traits are (in)desirable?
Last I checked they were tests that measured one definition of intelligence, without differentiating between biological, cultural, economic or social factors.

[SLN445]

If somehow the impossible happens and Eugenics occurs in the western world, one can only hope that who chooses is a scientist or someone with actual knowledge and not a politician.

[EuPromoter]

The Bouchard 1990 studies proved that intelligence is 75% genetic. So IQ test are a true measure of genetic intelligence.

[Claudius Gothicus]

The Bouchard 1990 studies proved that intelligence is 75% genetic. So IQ test are a true measure of genetic intelligence.

One study? that's enough? I don't think so, it would take millions of samples along decades to isolate the effect of ''determinant factors'' and then even trying to effectively measure them, that's simply undoable.

And what about the other 25%... do you also realize that different mindsets allow for different specializations. It would be arbitrary to set a certain amount of ''intelligence traits'' and then systematize them into a ''intelligent person'' while discarding others as ''useless'' or ''not intelligent'', you might have a next Einstein(who was dyslexic BTW) but lose a lot of Hemingways.

[EuPromoter]

One study? that's enough? I don't think so, it would take millions of samples along decades to isolate the effect of ''determinant factors'' and then even trying to effectively measure them, that's simply undoable.

And what about the other 25%... do you also realize that different mindsets allow for different specializations. It would be arbitrary to set a certain amount of ''intelligence traits'' and then systematize them into a ''intelligent person'' while discarding others as ''useless'' or ''not intelligent'', you might have a next Einstein(who was dyslexic BTW) but lose a lot of Hemingways.

I listed more studies in ym video. There are many twin studies that have shown IQ is about 75% genetic. The bar would be set low at 110 in IQ. You would not loose that many people by doing so.

[Claudius Gothicus]

I listed more studies in ym video. There are many twin studies that have shown IQ is about 75% genetic. The bar would be set low at 110 in IQ. You would not loose that many people by doing so.

No, all IQ studies reflect the ability of environmental and genetic factors tendency to interplaying, reinforcing or inhibiting each other. Nutrition, for example, has a permanent effect on cognitive abilities(nutrition being a purely environmental factor) just like educational level(only on a less determinant basis since there's certain cognitive barriers like mental disability). Connection to social-networks has an important role in which position does one occupy in society as well, one might not be the brightest mathematician in the community but taking risks, getting to connect with the right people and having a little bit of foresight might actually play better in the reality of everyday life.

In no way can we conclude that people's ability to relate/disconnect and thrive/fail is ''75% genes'', and if so, then we might just as well start giving that other 25% a lot of attention because the level of complexity that social reality has reached today, yesterday and will certainly reach tomorrow is far beyond the determination of ''that 75%''.

Also, by setting the bar at a 110 IQ low you are pretty much leaving ''half of everyone'' outside the ''reproductive pool''... how do you think that society will react to such a policy? Class Warfare(between the normals and the superiors) is the most likely consequence, and I bet IQ tests wouldn't predict who stands in which side.

Also, and just in case that you have never heard of it... I present you with the Flynn Effect.