# NEO-Eugenics **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 28, 2004, 5:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/neo-eugenics/236874 "2004-03-28T05:31:24Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2004, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/neo-eugenics/236874/41 "2004-03-29T00:17:54Z")
> [@Science Girl](#): > > Eugenics means “bettering of genetics.” It can be state enforced, or can be practiced from a Libertarian perspective where parents have the options to use genetic technologies to improve the quality of their offspring. > > But, we currently are actually practicing state sponsored Dysgenics: the redistribution of wealth allows the least intelligent and most crime prone to proliferate, instead of allowing natural selection to do away with them. So the question is, why can we have state sponsored dysgenics, but not state sponsored eugenics? Yes, I’ve encountered this argument many times before. (See Cyril M. Kornbluth’s classic SF story from 1951, “The Marching Morons.”) But can you cite any hard scientific proof that “dysgenic pressure” actually exists, or that it has had any real effects on the quality of our national gene-pool? Is the IQ of generations more recently born in America measurably lower than the IQ’s of older generations? Give us a cite! Preferably, something from a refereed, peer-reviewed scientific journal. ---
**Author:** ![Zagadka](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zagadka/32/7272_2.png) [@Zagadka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zagadka)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2004, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/neo-eugenics/236874/42 "2004-03-29T00:21:50Z")
> [@Science Girl](#): > > Eugenics means “bettering of genetics.” It can be state enforced, or can be practiced from a Libertarian perspective where parents have the options to use genetic technologies to improve the quality of their offspring. > > But, we currently are actually practicing state sponsored Dysgenics: the redistribution of wealth allows the least intelligent and most crime prone to proliferate, instead of allowing natural selection to do away with them. So the question is, why can we have state sponsored dysgenics, but not state sponsored eugenics? I believe that your first problem is establishing the case of eugenics as a probable course. Primarily, you make an argument that the wealthy are both smarter and less prone to crime, which is largely found to be untrue - they are prone to different types of crime, and many would say that they are more prone to immorality. In fact, it is blatant classism. Secondly, it leaves no room for one of the sad proofs of social structure - there will always be haves and have nots. No matter how purely bred or equally leveled a group is, there will always be a social ladder. You may indeed end up with smarter people as a whole, but assuming that having more “intelligent” (as determined by a problem-solving viewpoint) citizens necessarily follows that you have more a) moral, b) productive, c) law abiding, and d) wealthy citizens is a fallacy. In fact, you would be creating a greater income disparity, in addition to necessarily running a tyrrany. Such a social structure would not last long. ---
**Author:** ![Science\_Girl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f14d63/32.png) [@Science\_Girl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Science_Girl)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2004, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/neo-eugenics/236874/43 "2004-03-29T00:25:02Z")
> [@](#): > > This is not a formal debate forum. It is a discussion format. Was it not you who was complaining that I was not using proper debating tactics? Do you only want formal debating by your opponents but don’t hold yourself to the same standards? > [@](#): > > Logic is overrated. Logic leads to complete misunderstandings of human emotion and reasoning, which are by nature illogical. Since the human brain at the mechanical level is systematic, like a computer, all emotions can be explained in terms of logic. Our brains are basically a bunch of algorithms specifying how we should behave in face of various contingencies. > [@](#): > > How is it that they have “bred” themselves into a specifically smarter, on average, race? And if they are so smart, why are their societies dysfunctional? According to professor Rushton [http://www.ssc.uwo.ca/psychology/faculty/rushton.html](http://www.ssc.uwo.ca/psychology/faculty/rushton.html) in his own words: "Rushton (1995b) and others have proposed that the farther north the populations migrated, out of Africa, the more they encountered the cognitively demanding problems of gathering and storing food, gaining shelter, making clothes, and raising children during prolonged winters. Consequently, as the original African populations evolved into present-day Europeans and East Asians, they did so by moving in the direction of larger brains and greater intelligence, but also towards slower rates of maturation, lower levels of sex hormone, and concomitant reductions in sexual potency and aggressiveness, and increases in family stability and social conformity. Such an evolutionary scenario fits the data from Rushtons (1995b) review of the international literature on race differences which found that on more than 60 variables Orientals and Africans consistently averaged at opposite ends of a continuum with Europeans averaging intermediately. For example, the rate of dizygotic twinning based on a double ovulation is less than 4 per 1,000 births among East Asians, 8 among Europeans, and 16 or greater among Africans. Multiple birthing is known to be heritable through the race of the mother. No known environmental factor can explain why Africans average the smallest brains and the highest twinning rates, East Asians average the largest brains and the lowest twinning rates, and Europeans average intermediately in both. Clearly, there is a need for a genetic-evolutionary explanation." ---
**Author:** ![Zagadka](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zagadka/32/7272_2.png) [@Zagadka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zagadka)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2004, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/neo-eugenics/236874/44 "2004-03-29T00:30:30Z")
> [@Science Girl](#): > > Professor Richard Lynn has studied the national IQ averages of some 185 nations, the chart is at [http://www.rlynn.co.uk/pages/article\_intelligence/t4.htm](http://www.rlynn.co.uk/pages/article_intelligence/t4.htm) > > Highest national IQ averages are found among the pacific rim Asians, followed by nations with European majorities, with African nations scoring the lowest. South and South-East Asians are below the European figures, but higher than African ones. Of course, it is up to you whether you trust Professor Lynn’s research. I don’t see the correlation. You’re comparing the IQ of countries that frequently don’t even have a national education standard or required training, and accepting it as proof of genetic quality compared to super-wealthy nations? Is anyone supposed to be surprised that Rwanda has a lower average IQ than Canada, much less presume that the cause of the difference must be genetics? Even the scores don’t follow. Argentina ranks relatively high for a nation of poor, unwashed, lower class thieves, as you typify them. Kazakhstan strangely stands out from Afghanistan, despite relative proximity and ethnic backgrounds - could the disparity be caused by a stronger educational system in Kazakhstan? ---
**Author:** ![Science\_Girl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f14d63/32.png) [@Science\_Girl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Science_Girl)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2004, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/neo-eugenics/236874/45 "2004-03-29T00:31:10Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Yes, I’ve encountered this argument many times before. (See Cyril M. Kornbluth’s classic SF story from 1951, “The Marching Morons.”) But can you cite any hard scientific proof that “dysgenic pressure” actually exists, or that it has had any real effects on the quality of our national gene-pool? Is the IQ of generations more recently born in America measurably lower than the IQ’s of older generations? Give us a cite! Preferably, something from a refereed, peer-reviewed scientific journal. I am using the research of Professor Richard Lynn in his book “Dysgenics: Genetic Deterioration in Modern Populations” and his book “Eugenics: A Reassessment” to make my case. I can give you links to his books at [Amazon.com](http://Amazon.com) and links to reviews of his books. He basically shows differential fertility rates among those of low Socio-Economic status and those of High SES. And with the research that SES is highly correlated to IQ, and that IQ is 80% heritable, from this the conclusion is drawn by Lynn that the genetic potential for intelligence is decreasing all around the world. Sorry, this is the best I have at the moment in terms of data. It’s your choice whether you want to accept it as credible or not. Regards. ---
**Author:** ![Darwins\_Finch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darwins_finch/32/20304_2.png) [@Darwins\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darwins_Finch)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2004, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/neo-eugenics/236874/46 "2004-03-29T00:32:10Z")
> [@Science Girl](#): > > Everything I have stated is sincere and is what I actually believe, though I try to keep on open mind and stay objective since my beliefs can indeed be wrong - I would never know if I remained unbiased and close-minded. If you are indeed serious, and you truly believe in eugenics as some sort of social panacea, then you should start by answering the questions posed by **BrainGlutton**. Eugenics might well seem perfectly logical and reasonable in theory: breed a better, smarter, happier person, and all of our woes go away! Sounds great - unfortunately, the practice raises a good many hackles. Selective breeding means someone has to do the choosing, and someone else is not going to get chosen. That is a formula for amplifying society’s ills, not solving them. Making lots of people unhappy does no one any good. Further, the state of genetic research is such that we still do not understand much about which genes, if any, affect which psychological or behavioral traits. Without being very clear about that, you cannot establish a reasonable selection program because you have no guarantees that your selection efforts will even pay off. And what do you then do with those who didn’t “turn out” the way you wanted? So-called Social Darwinism has little to do with Darwinism (eugenics is most empahtically _not_ founded on the principles of natural selection), and is, rather, a means of weeding out “undesirables” in a society. And who is, or is not, undesirable is entirely dependent on who has power at the time. As such, it is virtually impossible for such a program to be beneficial for all (or even _at_ all), and represents nothing more than a giant leap backwards for humanity. We should be striving for unity, not separation and elimination. ---
**Author:** ![Zagadka](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zagadka/32/7272_2.png) [@Zagadka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zagadka)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2004, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/neo-eugenics/236874/47 "2004-03-29T00:38:17Z")
> [@Science Girl](#): > > Was it not you who was complaining that I was not using proper debating tactics? Do you only want formal debating by your opponents but don’t hold yourself to the same standards? No, I was complaining that you weren’t even bothering to reply to arguments. That hardly has anything to do with “proper debating tactics,” unless you consider turning around and staring at a wall a tactic. > [@](#): > > Since the human brain at the mechanical level is systematic, like a computer, all emotions can be explained in terms of logic. Our brains are basically a bunch of algorithms specifying how we should behave in face of various contingencies. I don’t agree with that. By that definition, human behavior should be predictable, in a mathematical sense. In a larger sense, we behave in a quite illogical manner, often seeking out painful and more difficult solutions when a more obvious, easier, and more logical solution is at hand. > [@](#): > > According to professor Rushton [http://www.ssc.uwo.ca/psychology/faculty/rushton.html](http://www.ssc.uwo.ca/psychology/faculty/rushton.html) in his own words: > > "Rushton (1995b) and others have proposed that the farther north the populations migrated, out of Africa, the more they encountered the cognitively demanding problems of gathering and storing food, gaining shelter, making clothes, and raising children during prolonged winters. Consequently, as the original African populations evolved into present-day Europeans and East Asians, they did so by moving in the direction of larger brains and greater intelligence, but also towards slower rates of maturation, lower levels of sex hormone, and concomitant reductions in sexual potency and aggressiveness, and increases in family stability and social conformity. By this logic, the native American peoples should be super-geniuses, given more “cognitively demanding problems” of not only getting there, but surviving. By this logic, the more hospitable the terrain, the lower the IQ should be, and the more difficult, the more clever the people. Why is this not the case? Socially, why are the poor, who must by definition work harder to survive, necessarily stupider? But once again, getting back to Asians… why is it that in so many Asian nations, the society is in such catastrophe, if, by genetics, they are smarter than most other people? ---
**Author:** ![Darwins\_Finch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darwins_finch/32/20304_2.png) [@Darwins\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darwins_Finch)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2004, 12:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/neo-eugenics/236874/48 "2004-03-29T00:46:48Z")
> [@Science Girl](#): > > And with the research that SES is highly correlated to IQ, and that IQ is 80% heritable, from this the conclusion is drawn by Lynn that the genetic potential for intelligence is decreasing all around the world. This is a [fallacy](http://jrscience.wcp.muohio.edu/Research/HNatureProposalsArticles/FINAL.HumanIntelligencean.html): > [@](#): > > The second fallacy of hereditarianism is not wrong in saying that IQ is to some degree heritable, but instead is problematic because of two false extensions of heritability hypothesis, which are used in most hereditarian arguments. These are: 1) The notion that heritable means that an individual’s intelligence is predetermined by their genes and that this can not be improved by environmental factors; and 2) The confusion of within- and between- group heredity. This means that researchers mistakenly assert that comparisons between the differences in the average percent of variation among individuals within a group indicate a difference between the two groups. > We can illustrate the hereditarian fallacy at work with a simple example. Consider human height within two hypothetical groups of males: one with an average height of five foot, ten inches from a prosperous American town and the other with an average height of five foot six inches in a starving third-world village. Heritability is 95 percent in both cases meaning that tall fathers have tall sons and vice-versa. According to the hereditarian fallacy, the differences between these two groups are the result of a specific genetic makeup and as long as the population remains isolated, these differences will continue. What if improved nutrition enhanced the height of the shorter group over a period of time or a drought caused a food shortage in environment of the taller population? According to the principles of heredity, the average height would be affected by such environmental factors. So why couldn’t intelligence, which has a much smaller heritability than height, be improved by education? (Gould 186) Furthermore, a recent edition of USA Today a study ranked U.S. students (which includes a large amount of little Anglo-Saxons) twelfth in performance on standardized achievement tests. According to hereditarian logic this would indicate that all American students are innately less intelligent than foreign students. It ignores the possibility that the difference in test scores might have been the result of the United States’ inferior education system. I would also question the methods used in calculating so-called “national IQs” for multiple countries (or even for one!). To get a proper nation-wide average, one would need to test a very large pool, from all across each country, with culturally-independent tests. I have my doubts that such has been done, if for no other reason than the sheer logistics of such an undertaking. ---
**Author:** ![Science\_Girl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f14d63/32.png) [@Science\_Girl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Science_Girl)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2004, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/neo-eugenics/236874/49 "2004-03-29T00:47:17Z")
> [@Zagadka](#): > > I believe that your first problem is establishing the case of eugenics as a probable course. Primarily, you make an argument that the wealthy are both smarter and less prone to crime, which is largely found to be untrue - they are prone to different types of crime, and many would say that they are more prone to immorality. In fact, it is blatant classism. Research by dozens of professors, which I can name if you choose, as well as by the American Psychological Association, show that the higher the IQ, the wealthier the person, and the less crime prone, on average. By crime, I mean breaking laws: most law-breakers are found in the low IQ section, though there are indeed smart criminals as well. I argue that “classism” is one of those “isms” like “racism” “sexism” “agism” “anti-Semetism” and “homophobia” that are emotionally driven words that detract from an objective debate of these topics, thus I would not consider them valid arguments and as such will ignore such insults/name-calling/ad hominem attacks. > [@](#): > > Secondly, it leaves no room for one of the sad proofs of social structure - there will always be haves and have nots. No matter how purely bred or equally leveled a group is, there will always be a social ladder. Well, if you compare the number of poor in nations with higher IQ averages with those of lower ones, there will be a higher percentage of poor in stupid nations than smart ones. So with eugenics, we can at least increase the median national income. But yes, there will probably always be a normal distribution of income. > [@](#): > > You may indeed end up with smarter people as a whole, but assuming that having more “intelligent” (as determined by a problem-solving viewpoint) citizens necessarily follows that you have more a) moral, b) productive, c) law abiding, and d) wealthy citizens is a fallacy. I believe I have shown a plethora or sources/research showing that the pattern is that the higher the IQ averages of any group, the less crime-prone, the less poor, and the more productive they are, generally Regards ---
**Author:** ![monstro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@monstro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monstro)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2004, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/neo-eugenics/236874/50 "2004-03-29T00:52:34Z")
> [@Science Girl](#): > > with African nations scoring the lowest. In your eugenics scheme, should successful black people be encouraged to reproduce just like successful whites and Asians? If you’re using financial success as an indicator of IQ, it shouldn’t matter what race someone is, right? Or would the Oprah Winfreys and Vernon Jordans be sterilized along with the rest of black riffraff? If all the poor people in one generation are sterilized, who will do the basic chores of society? Surely not everyone will be CEOs, doctors/lawyers, or professors. Our economy simply does not allow for such a thing. Our economy does not allow for everyone to be equally wealthy…it thrives on inequality. So…even if everyone has astronomical IQs, not everyone is going to be financially “successful”. So what do you do then? Continue to weed out the “poor” in every generation? To what end? A janitor with an IQ of 200? **Science Girl** , are you aware that along with the Jews-are-geniuses stereotype, there’s the idea that Jews are also more prone to neuroses? Assuming that both are true (and I don’t believe they are), doesn’t this indicate that genius may have unhealthy attachments? What if by selecting for intelligence, we select _against_ physical prowess and artistic inclinations? What if by lowering the genetic diversity of our gene pool, we increase the frequency of deleterious alleles? What if it’s not merely coincidental that smart people have fewer children? You could end up with a population of infertile and impotent eggheads. Have eugenetists considered these possibilities? ---
**Author:** ![Science\_Girl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f14d63/32.png) [@Science\_Girl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Science_Girl)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2004, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/neo-eugenics/236874/51 "2004-03-29T00:55:56Z")
> [@Zagadka](#): > > I don’t see the correlation. You’re comparing the IQ of countries that frequently don’t even have a national education standard or required training, and accepting it as proof of genetic quality compared to super-wealthy nations? Is anyone supposed to be surprised that Rwanda has a lower average IQ than Canada, much less presume that the cause of the difference must be genetics? > > Even the scores don’t follow. Argentina ranks relatively high for a nation of poor, unwashed, lower class thieves, as you typify them. Kazakhstan strangely stands out from Afghanistan, despite relative proximity and ethnic backgrounds - could the disparity be caused by a stronger educational system in Kazakhstan? I saw a general trend: the higher the national IQ average, the more advanced the nation. There were some exceptions, such as nations with very good resources like oil in which the profits from the oil itself creates a unusually large GDP. Another exception is China: they have a very high antional IQ average, but communism held them down. Now that they are becoming more capitalist, China’s GDP is currently the fastest growing. China will soon be a major economic competetor of America, see [Beijing's Secret War On America - How China Expects To Win](http://www.rense.com/general50/bej.htm) ---
**Author:** ![Zagadka](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zagadka/32/7272_2.png) [@Zagadka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zagadka)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2004, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/neo-eugenics/236874/52 "2004-03-29T01:03:52Z")
> [@Science Girl](#): > > Research by dozens of professors, which I can name if you choose, as well as by the American Psychological Association, show that the higher the IQ, the wealthier the person, and the less crime prone, on average. By crime, I mean breaking laws: most law-breakers are found in the low IQ section, though there are indeed smart criminals as well. I was not referring to “smart criminals.” I was referring to wealthy criminals breaking different laws than poor criminals, laws that are more likely to be dismissed. Comparing the horribly attorcious crime of carrying some pot around to the crime of embezzling or insider trading is completely different. The laws are enforced with complete different abandon. One could make the argument that a wealthy criminal is simply less likely to be caught, and if caught, convicted. > [@](#): > > I argue that “classism” is one of those “isms” like “racism” “sexism” “agism” “anti-Semetism” and “homophobia” that are emotionally driven words that detract from an objective debate of these topics, thus I would not consider them valid arguments and as such will ignore such insults/name-calling/ad hominem attacks. _shrugs_ Doesn’t change the fact that you are practicing classism. Stabbing a man because he is black and then saying that you are above such insults as racism does not make you not a racist. > [@](#): > > Well, if you compare the number of poor in nations with higher IQ averages with those of lower ones, there will be a higher percentage of poor in stupid nations than smart ones. So with eugenics, we can at least increase the median national income. But yes, there will probably always be a normal distribution of income. Education will increase the median national income. Medical care will increase the median national income. Population control would increase the median national income. Killing all the poor people would increase the median national income. There are a billion things that can affect the median national income. As I subsequently pointed out, the fact that there are a higher percentage of poor in “stupid” nations likely has more to do with quality of education and stimulating upbringing as it does with genetics. Given an equal grounds from birth to adulthood, we could start talking about how much race has to do with intelligence. > [@](#): > > I believe I have shown a plethora or sources/research showing that the pattern is that the higher the IQ averages of any group, the less crime-prone, the less poor, and the more productive they are, generally Correlation is not causation. When you finish taking Statistics 101, you can start talking about correlation and causation. You can not simply throw out the environmental variables and arrive at an arbitrary conclusion. That is cherrypicking at its worst. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2004, 1:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/neo-eugenics/236874/53 "2004-03-29T01:04:54Z")
> [@Zagadka](#): > > But once again, getting back to Asians… why is it that in so many Asian nations, the society is in such catastrophe, if, by genetics, they are smarter than most other people? Perhaps beacause intelligence isn’t the only thing a society needs to thrive? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2004, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/neo-eugenics/236874/54 "2004-03-29T01:11:27Z")
> [@Science Girl](#): > > I saw a general trend: the higher the national IQ average, the more advanced the nation. Are you sure you’re not confusing cause and effect? Science is still very far from determining whether hereditary or environmental factors are more important in the formation of IQ. Perhaps we people in “advanced” nations have higher IQs than Third Worlders because all our lives we have had access to good nutrition, free public education, and a social environment filled with intellectual and sensory stimulations of all kinds. ---
**Author:** ![Science\_Girl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f14d63/32.png) [@Science\_Girl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Science_Girl)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2004, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/neo-eugenics/236874/55 "2004-03-29T01:17:59Z")
> [@](#): > > Selective breeding means someone has to do the choosing, and someone else is not going to get chosen. That is a formula for amplifying society’s ills, not solving them. Making lots of people unhappy does no one any good. Eugenics simply means “bettering of genetics,” it does not mean someone has to do the choosing, but it can mean that. There are many ways to improve genes. It can simply mean parents having the option of selecting genes for their offspring, or it can mean state sponsored eugenics. Again, we currently practice state sponsored Dysgenics via the redistribution of wealth and other Liberal policies, so then why not state sponsored dysgenics? Actually, one suggestion is that we give financial incentives for the brightest to have more offspring, financial incentives for the least intelligent to not have kids, and then leave the middle class untouched. Since most people are from the middle class, it is possible to keep most people happy with such an eugenics policy at the state level. > [@](#): > > Further, the state of genetic research is such that we still do not understand much about which genes, if any, affect which psychological or behavioral traits. Without being very clear about that, you cannot establish a reasonable selection program because you have no guarantees that your selection efforts will even pay off. I can answer your question here by a link that will only take no more than 5 minutes to read: [http://www.prometheism.net/FAQII.html](http://www.prometheism.net/FAQII.html) To summarize, we already know enough about behavioral traits to get something started. It is pretty much univeral now that we have 5 basic personality traits: The Big 5 traits, that are 50% heritable, see [http://home.comcast.net/~neoeugenics/lynn.htm](http://home.comcast.net/~neoeugenics/lynn.htm) Also, we have been practicing eugenics with crops and animals with great success without knowing the exact genes responsible, even Jews have practiced eugenics for thousands of years by setting up their society in a way that ensured that the brightest and most successful Jews had more opportunities to reproduce than the less intelligent. They knew nothing of genetics yet were very successful, see [http://home.comcast.net/~neoeugenics/mac.htm](http://home.comcast.net/~neoeugenics/mac.htm) and [http://groups.google.com/groups?q=rabbi+max+eugenics&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=b7j8f9%245qi%241%40reader08.wxs.nl&rnum=1](http://groups.google.com/groups?q=rabbi+max+eugenics&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=b7j8f9%245qi%241%40reader08.wxs.nl&rnum=1) > [@](#): > > And what do you then do with those who didn’t “turn out” the way you wanted? You are equating eugenics with actual governmental policies. As I said, eugenics simply means “bettering of genes” it does not mean any specific policy. I think you are implying that “undesirables” would be euthanized? I would not want such a policy, I want an “ethical” system, not anything Draconian. > [@](#): > > So-called Social Darwinism has little to do with Darwinism (eugenics is most empahtically _not_ founded on the principles of natural selection) I never said it was. Natural selection is simply the proliferation of those genes that lead to reproductive success. In some animals, rape and regular murder leads to reproductive success, but that does not mean I consider this a good thing. , > [@](#): > > and is, rather, a means of weeding out “undesirables” in a society. And who is, or is not, undesirable is entirely dependent on who has power at the time. I agree, “undesirable” is a matter of personal taste, people value different things. I am here to make the case for my ideals of what I consider valuable: lower crime, lower poverty, greater scientific, technological, and philosophical advancement. A eugenics program, whether state sponsored or from an individual choice of parents system, can achieve this. > [@](#): > > and represents nothing more than a giant leap backwards for humanity. I would argue that this statement is a matter of personal opinion. Different people have different opinions of what is “backwards” and what is “forward.” I of course completely respect your ideals, though I may not agree with all of them. I am a futurist, a rationalist, and a pragmatist. These are my philosophical views, but not necessarily the views of everyone. Regards. ---
**Author:** ![Dogface](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9d8465/32.png) [@Dogface](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dogface)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2004, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/neo-eugenics/236874/56 "2004-03-29T01:27:51Z")
> [@Science Girl](#): > > Well, I thought this topic could trigger a debate. Here are my ideas: > > Natural selection today favors the stupid: the brightest have the fewest children, the dumbest have the most. We see the results with respect to dropping IQs, dropping school and SAT performance, higher crime, higher poverty levels, etc. So, what can be done to reverse this trend? Average IQ has increased about seven points every decade, so much that the baseline of “normal” (100) has to be revised to keep up with this continuing increase. This is the very well-known “Flynn Effect”. SAT scores have not been constantly falling. Crime is at its lowest in about three decades–according to the US DoJ BJS National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), in 2002, violent crime was at the lowest rate ever recorded. Property crime was still in a 20-year-long decline. If you stop believing a bunch of lies, you won’t have to worry about how to “explain” them. ---
**Author:** ![Zagadka](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zagadka/32/7272_2.png) [@Zagadka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zagadka)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2004, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/neo-eugenics/236874/57 "2004-03-29T01:37:30Z")
> [@Science Girl](#): > > I saw a general trend: the higher the national IQ average, the more advanced the nation. I think you missed the point. My point is that it you may have it the other way around - the more “advanced” the nation, the higher the national IQ average, because of little teeny tiny factors such as, oh, education, health care, cultural diversity, environment, availability of jobs, stimulating environments, child care, family size, diet, presence of media, etc. ---
**Author:** ![Zagadka](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zagadka/32/7272_2.png) [@Zagadka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zagadka)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2004, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/neo-eugenics/236874/58 "2004-03-29T01:42:15Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Perhaps beacause intelligence isn’t the only thing a society needs to thrive? Yes, thank you. 🙂 This is exactly the point I was trying to make earlier - the intelligence level measured traditionally by IQ has _very_ little to do with running a pristine society. IQ simply does not measure the skills that it takes to do such, nor was it ever designed to. So, unless you have a band of super-super-intelligent people who may have lower IQs running the plain old super-intelligent high IQ superbreeds, the society would collapse rapidly into itself - I mean, this is all assuming that the 90% of the population who didn’t meet the requirements to breed, instead of showing up for sterilization, turns into a murderous, rampaging mob and slaughters all the brainiacs who came up with the concept. Further, there is nothing showing that a society of purebred geniuses would handle issues such as child development, international politics, etc any better. Operating simply on pure logic, you aren’t going to get very far trying to run a society, much less trying to impose laws. So, primarily, you have faults in the concept of eugenics. Secondly, you have faults implimenting any eugenic program that you come up with, and thirdly, you have faults trying to maintain the system once it is in place. ---
**Author:** ![Science\_Girl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f14d63/32.png) [@Science\_Girl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Science_Girl)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2004, 1:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/neo-eugenics/236874/59 "2004-03-29T01:47:56Z")
> [@](#): > > You’re going way beyond IQ now, you’re asserting that your genes can determine other aspects of your personality – and implying, at least, that they are more influential on personality than the environment you grow up in. By the way, I’m trying my best to provide citations. I have been reading on this topic for years, and it’s very hard for me to go through hundreds of websites and also searching Google to find things I’ve read years ago from which I acquired by beliefs. So much research scattered everywhere throughout the internet and I don’t remember where I read things. But, I can say that much of the research is reposted at [http://www.neoeugenics.com/](http://www.neoeugenics.com/) you will have to simply search that entire archive, if its to your interest to do so. It is now pretty unanimous in Psychology that humans have 5 basic personality types: the Big 5 traits, that are 50% inherited. Also, professor Bouchard studied identical twins reared appart and found that genes account for a good amount of behavior, here are two summary of his findings I just searched at Yahoo: [http://www.mugu.com/cgi-bin/Upstream/Issues/psychology/IQ/bouchard-twins.html](http://www.mugu.com/cgi-bin/Upstream/Issues/psychology/IQ/bouchard-twins.html) “Since 1979, a continuing study of monozygotic and dizygotic twins, separated in infancy and reared apart, has subjected more than 100 sets of reared-apart twins or triplets to a week of intensive psychological and physiological assessment. Like the prior, smaller studies of monozygotic twins reared apart, about 70% of the variance in IQ was found to be associated with genetic variation. On multiple measures of personality and temperament, occupational and leisure-time interests, and social attitudes, monozygotic twins reared apart are about as similar as are monozygotic twins reared together. These findings extend and support those from numerous other twin, family, and adoption studies. It is a plausible hypothesis that genetic differences affect psychological differences largely indirectly, by influencing the effective environment of the developing child. This evidence for the strong heritability of most psychological traits, sensibly construed, does not detract from the value or importance of parenting, education, and other propaedeutic interventions.” Also see [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/twins/twins2.htm](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/twins/twins2.htm) > [@](#): > > most eugenicists of that period were actually racists, concerned with stopping the nonwhites of the world (or of their particular countries) from out-breeding the whites. MIT Brain Sciences Department professor Steven Pinker recently completed the book “The Blank Slate: Modern Denial of Human Nature” in which he finds a genetic component to virtually every human behavior, here are some [Amazon.com](http://Amazon.com) reviews of his book: [http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0670031518/qid=1080524129/sr=2-1/ref=sr\_2\_1/102-7964154-0127327](http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0670031518/qid=1080524129/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/102-7964154-0127327) And the American psychological Association’s recent book "Behavioral Genetics in the Post Genomic Erra, see [http://home.comcast.net/~neoeugenics/bgpe.htm](http://home.comcast.net/~neoeugenics/bgpe.htm) for a complilation of relevant excerpts from the book. > [@](#): > > most eugenicists of that period were actually racists, concerned with stopping the nonwhites of the world (or of their particular countries) from out-breeding the whites. Yes, White eugenicists were race realists, acknowledging differences in races. Japan too practiced eugenics and their last eugenic law was banned in 1997 I believe. China and India currently practice eugenics, and Jews practiced eugenics for the last 2,000 years. So, eugenics is not just something Whites have done. yes, i support a non-racial form of eugenics since America is multi-racial. Basically, I support encouraging smart people, regardless of race, to have more children, and stupid people regardless of race to have less children. Regards. ---
**Author:** ![Science\_Girl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f14d63/32.png) [@Science\_Girl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Science_Girl)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2004, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/neo-eugenics/236874/60 "2004-03-29T01:53:39Z")
> [@Zagadka](#): > > . . . . You and I are basically repeating ourselves now over and over, unneeded redundancy. Basically, I have provided research by various actual University professors and organizations, the researchers claiming that my ideas are accurate. You, I assess, believe the research by these experts are flawed while I believe the research is correct. So, let us just leave it at this instead of engaging in another cycle of redundancy. Regards. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/neo-eugenics/236874.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/neo-eugenics/236874.md?page=4)