I would like to assure the OP that we have no such intention, and that you need not worry about a possible execution, I promise, we won’t let them get you.
How do they define “subnormals”? Traditionally that has often meant “colored people”, “immigrants” “homosexuals”, “Jews”, “Irish”, “low income” or “people with certain shaped head”, but did they provide a more scientific definition?
The theme of dysgenic pressure creating a future dystopian society of morons and incompetents has been explored in various works such as Idiocracy, Wall-E, the Time Machine, and the 2016 United States Presidential Election. But is there any scientific basis to “stupids” eventually outbreeding the intelligent and overwhelming society. Because from what I’ve read, education and intelligence levels have largely been increasing.
And regression to the mean.
And voting has fuck all to do with intelligence. Its ideology and self interest.
Dr. Crane was not referring to any of the groups you mentioned as being “subnormal.” You’ll noticed he mentioned the name “Kallikak.”
This name, like “Jukes,” was a fictional name for a family that included what we would now call “dysfunctional” people…of any race, color, gender, sexual orientation, or whatever. They are mentioned in Wikipedia, which gives full documentation for the existence of the family, and adds a new wrinkle: That the defective nature of the family originated because of fetal alcohol syndrome, shortly before World War I. The dangers of alcohol to expectant mothers had been suspected ages before that, but not formally defined until about 1973. In the Wikipedia entry under “Kallikak” in the References heading are several sources for this data.
Whatever the origin, the ramifications of the Social Frankenstein that Dr. Crane described come off as very real.
As far as voting is concerned, such people would be easy prey for a politician or demagogue with ulterior motives who seeks to sway a voter base of large numbers but questionable intelligence.
(On a lesser scale, it was claimed that in the 1920 Presidential election, the first one after the Women’s Suffrage Amendment went into effect, the handsome Warren G. Harding defeated James M. Cox, a balding man who wore glasses. And we remember how Harding turned out as a president. I don’t agree with this myself, but my eighth-grade teacher–a woman–told us so.)
Which they make up for with breeding prowess. Intelligence is not necessary for evolutionary success.
You should probably skip the middleman and go straight to the pit.
No.
Intelligence is not the only virtue.
I know plenty of low-IQ people who are better people, and contribute more to humanity, than some smart people.
Let’s find a genetic test for being an asshole instead, then we can talk.
You misspelled “peak!” No breeding for you!
Yes. The United States tried it. We had forced sterilization polices in many states. We gave the idea to some guy named Hitler later.
I think I agree with everything here. How do you feel about selecting for clearly genetic things?
You misspelled “role.” No breeding for you!
Of course. We should maintain a population of gammas and deltas to do the tedious stuff that would drive a smarter person insane.
I don’t think it does. With enough smart people you can invent ways to collect garbage and work slaughterhouses without an army of people doing dangerous mundane work.
I am getting confused about the scope of this proposal. Are we saying we should sterilize anyone with an IQ below 80? or are we saying we should sterlize people who have Down’s syndrome?
And don’t forget that part of the problem has been that we simply didn’t know how to educate people with intellectual disabilities, and therefore underestimated their ability to learn (and didn’t try, making it a self-fulfilling prophecy).
Today, there are people with Down syndrome, for instance, who go to college, own their own businesses, play multiple musical instruments, have acting and modeling careers, swim the English Channel, and do things many of us normal IQ types fail to do. So we can’t even know what intelligence is and who has it and what it’s worth.
Martin Shkreli by all accounts is a very smart guy.
So there are obviously smart people the world would be better off without.
The cost to society of a person with Down’s syndrome is about $250,000 over their lifetime. I don’t think there is actually a problem with people with Down’s syndrome procreating too much.
The cost to society of a person with some kinds of genetic predispositions to heart disease is significantly higher. So high that it easily exceeds the net cost to society of someone with down syndrome.
If we are trying to hit people with normal genes but low IQ, I think youa re going to run into all sorts of problems.
Take a look back and see which groups had low IQ during the height of eugenics. There was a significant racist/nativist element to it all. Asians and Jews are particularly good examples of groups that had low IQ at the time.
I will not get into this. I misspelled a few words in Dr. Crane’s article–which I reproduced by hand–so I have no room to talk. :o
Okay, never mind, you can reproduce.
Pretty bad! In order for me to be competitive, I’ll need everyone else to have an IQ in the low to mid double digits 
It’s based on current trends. You can basically Google ‘when will the worlds population peak (or I suppose you could ask it when it will peek instead :p)’ and get a ton of articles on the subject such as this:
But there are tons of different estimates on when it will peak, how many people that will mean and what effect it will have. I just gave what seems to be the most accepted, or at least most used figures there.
Well, your beloved Dr. Crane wrote this almost two “Breeding cycles” ago.
Please provide evidence the average IQ in the Western world has declined.
Well, I confess I wouldn’t know how to do that…do you?