# US Federal Eugenics Program
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-federal-eugenics-program/677993
**Category:** Great Debates
**Created:** [January 6, 2014, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-federal-eugenics-program/677993 "2014-01-06T01:53:48Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@johngalt2014](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/johngalt2014)
#### Post date: [January 6, 2014, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-federal-eugenics-program/677993/1 "2014-01-06T01:53:48Z")
My proposal for a Federal Eugenics Program follows below. Importantly, all options are entirely voluntary, and as such neutral with regard to race, religion, ethnicity, education, etc.
[ol]
[li]Cash payment to any man or woman willing to have a vasectomy/tubal ligation. The amount could be decided on later, maybe somewhere in the 1-5K range, and it would likely have to be titrated down with time after the age of 18. These details could be worked out later.[/li][li]Cash payment for long-acting depot injection contraceptives for females under the age of 18, or to their guardians. Guardian consent would be needed for this. Repeat for cash as needed until age 18, at which time cash could be offered for tubal ligation. If something similar exists for males under 18, offer that to them on the same terms.[/li][li]For criminals, offer vasectomy/tubal ligation in exchange for commuted sentences[/li][li]For those with mental impairment or known hereditary disorder, offer higher cash payments for vasectomy/tubal ligation[/li][/ol]
I am curious to hear others’ thoughts on this. I am particularly interested in the opinion of staunch pro-lifer’s.
---
### Author:  [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)
#### Post date: [January 6, 2014, 2:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-federal-eugenics-program/677993/2 "2014-01-06T02:09:31Z")
> [@johngalt2014](#):
>
> My proposal for a Federal Eugenics Program follows below. Importantly, all options are entirely voluntary, and as such neutral with regard to race, religion, ethnicity, education, etc.
> [ol]
> [li]Cash payment to any man or woman willing to have a vasectomy/tubal ligation. [/li][/ol]
😕 That sounds like a general population-control measure. I see no eugenic purpose in making that same offer to **everybody.**
---
### Author:  [@orcenio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/orcenio)
#### Post date: [January 6, 2014, 2:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-federal-eugenics-program/677993/3 "2014-01-06T02:11:11Z")
Why would the US government be paying it’s citizens to undergo sterilization?
---
### Author:  [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)
#### Post date: [January 6, 2014, 2:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-federal-eugenics-program/677993/4 "2014-01-06T02:16:32Z")
What’s the overall goal? General population reduction? Or do you feel the people who’d accept this offer represent some self-selected group?
I’d also strongly question the idea that there’s a general genetic link to criminal behavior. And I don’t see why criminals who’ve been convicted of crime should be allowed to go free early (and perhaps commit new crimes) in exchange for sterilization. These two ideas combined would probably increase the crime rate.
---
### Author:  [@johngalt2014](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/johngalt2014)
#### Post date: [January 6, 2014, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-federal-eugenics-program/677993/5 "2014-01-06T02:24:09Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#):
>
> 😕 That sounds like a general population-control measure. I see no eugenic purpose in making that same offer to **everybody.**
The assumption is (and it could be wrong), that the people who avail this offer will primarily be low income individuals. Low income correlates with low IQ, and IQ is hereditary. Hence, low IQ would be negatively selected, and over time general IQ in America would rise.
---
### Author:  [@johngalt2014](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/johngalt2014)
#### Post date: [January 6, 2014, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-federal-eugenics-program/677993/6 "2014-01-06T02:27:57Z")
> [@orcenio](#):
>
> Why would the US government be paying it’s citizens to undergo sterilization?
For background info and reasons for eugenics:
[ol]
[li][http://www.eugenics.net/papers/lynnrev.html[/li][li]http://www.eugenics.net/papers/caseforeugenics.html[/li][li]http://www.eugenics.net/papers/Itzkoff.html[/li][/ol]](http://www.eugenics.net/papers/lynnrev.html%5B/li%5D%5Bli%5Dhttp://www.eugenics.net/papers/caseforeugenics.html%5B/li%5D%5Bli%5Dhttp://www.eugenics.net/papers/Itzkoff.html%5B/li%5D%5B/ol%5D)
---
### Author:  [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)
#### Post date: [January 6, 2014, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-federal-eugenics-program/677993/7 "2014-01-06T02:28:49Z")
> [@johngalt2014](#):
>
> The assumption is (and it could be wrong), that the people who avail this offer will primarily be low income individuals. **Low income correlates with low IQ, and IQ is hereditary.** Hence, low IQ would be negatively selected, and over time general IQ in America would rise.
You do know that nobody takes _The Bell Curve_ seriously any more, don’t you?
---
### Author:  [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)
#### Post date: [January 6, 2014, 2:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-federal-eugenics-program/677993/8 "2014-01-06T02:32:23Z")
[RationalWiki](http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Eugenics):
> [@](#):
>
> **The absurdity of eugenics**
>
> Whilst eugenics is based, in theory, in the perfectly valid science of genetics, its application is always _far_ from scientific. For obvious reasons the room to experiment is limited in the extreme. Furthermore, whereas it is relatively easy, for example, to breed cattle for higher milk yield, defining what is meant by a “better” human being is a very difficult question. At this point eugenics stops being scientific and starts being normative and political, and a rather nasty type of politics at that. Eugenics drew heavily from various racist and racialist tracts of the period.
>
> The most obvious flaw with application of eugenics is that its proponents have tended to conflate phenotypical (read: superficial) traits with genotypical traits. Even humans (or any species) that look fit on the outside may carry recessive traits that don’t exhibit themselves but will be passed on. The development of the field of epigenetics,[wp] i.e. heritable environmental factors in genetic expression that occur without change to underlying DNA structures, poses further problems for eugenics.
>
> There is no reason to believe that a selective breeding plan to encourage certain physical traits in humans will mean the same results that plant and animal breeders have achieved for centuries (who were without specific knowledge of the genes they were selecting in and out). Odds are that the purebred humans with distinguishing features would be less healthy than the offspring of unconstrained mating would be, for the same reason that kennel-club purebred animals are often less healthy than mutts. This concept of “purity” is flawed in that it creates many of the same problems as inbreeding — a loss of biodiversity can in fact lead to increased susceptibility to a common concentrated weakness.[20] An example of this would be deer populations. A long time ago, natural selection selected for fitter males with antlers, but cue the rise of sport hunting and antlered populations plunged down fast. Another example of concentration is haemophilia, which became the plague of the royal families.
>
> The extreme reductionism of eugenics often crossed into what is now comical territory. Nearly every social behavior, including things such as “pauperism” and the vaguely defined “feeble-mindedness,” could be traced back to a single genetic disorder according to eugenicists. Many works of eugenics recall the similar trend evident in phrenology (indeed, there was some overlap between eugenics and phrenology).[21]
>
> While eugenics gained widespread support in the early 20th century (even within the scientific community) of a number of nations, there was also strong opposition during this period.[22] The biologist Raymond Pearl, for example, once a supporter of the movement, turned against it in the late 1920s.[23] The geneticist Lancelot Hogben argued that eugenics relied on a false dichotomy of “nature vs. nurture” and that it infected science with political value judgments;[24] Hogben was asked by the (then-director of the London School of Economics) William Beveridge to create a “Chair of Social Biology” department on campus, gave him the finger and prevented any of his eugenic ideas from being taken seriously in the formation of the British welfare state.[25] Clarence Darrow famously denounced it as a “cult.”[26] The Carnegie Institute, which initially funded the Eugenics Record Office, withdrew its funding after a review of its research, leading to its closing in 1939.[27]
>
> Stephen J. Gould was strongly opposed to eugenics. He wrote extensively on the topic, including his treatment on intelligence in _The Mismeasure of Man._[28]
---
### Author:  [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)
#### Post date: [January 6, 2014, 2:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-federal-eugenics-program/677993/9 "2014-01-06T02:38:57Z")
> [@johngalt2014](#):
>
> For background info and reasons for eugenics:
> [ol]
> [li][http://www.eugenics.net/papers/lynnrev.html[/li][li]http://www.eugenics.net/papers/caseforeugenics.html[/li][li]http://www.eugenics.net/papers/Itzkoff.html[/li][/ol]](http://www.eugenics.net/papers/lynnrev.html%5B/li%5D%5Bli%5Dhttp://www.eugenics.net/papers/caseforeugenics.html%5B/li%5D%5Bli%5Dhttp://www.eugenics.net/papers/Itzkoff.html%5B/li%5D%5B/ol%5D)
:dubious: Those papers originally were published, respectively, in:
1. [The Journal of Social, Political, and Economic Studies](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_of_Social,_Political,_and_Economic_Studies)
> [@](#):
>
> The Journal of Social, Political, and Economic Studies (ISSN 0278-839X) is a journal published by Scott-Townsend Publishers (The Council for Social and Economic Studies), that also publishes the Mankind Quarterly. It was founded by eugenicist Roger Pearson, who had previously founded the Neo-nazi[1] organization Northern League[2] and originally published by his Council for American Affairs, an American representative in the World Anti Communist League.[3][4]
1. [The Occidental Quarterly](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occidental_quarterly)
> [@](#):
>
> The Occidental Quarterly is an American journal published by the Charles Martel Society. Its stated aim is to defend “the cultural, ethnic, and racial interests of Western European peoples” and examine “contemporary political, social, and demographic trends that impact the posterity of Western Civilization”.[2] Critics have described the publication as white nationalist,[3] pseudo-academic (or pseudo-scholarly) and “a far-right racially obsessed US Magazine”.[4][5][6][7]
1. [Mankind Quarterly](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mankind_Quarterly)
> [@](#):
>
> The Mankind Quarterly is a peer-reviewed academic journal dedicated to physical and cultural anthropology and is published by the Council for Social and Economic Studies in Washington, D.C. It contains articles on human evolution, intelligence, ethnography, linguistics, mythology, archaeology, etc. The journal aims to unify anthropology with biology.
>
> It has been called a “cornerstone of the scientific racism establishment” and a “white supremacist journal”,[1] “scientific racism’s keepers of the flame”,[2] a journal with a “racist orientation” and an “infamous racist journal”,[3] and “journal of ‘scientific racism’”.[4]
>
> Its foundation in 1960 may in part have been a response to the 1954 U.S. Supreme Court decision Brown v. Board of Education which ordered the desegregation of schools in the United States.[5][6] It was originally published in Edinburgh, Scotland, by the International Association for the Advancement of Ethnology and Eugenics.
>
> The founders were Robert Gayre, Henry Garrett, Roger Pearson, Corrado Gini, Ottmar von Verschuer and Reginald Ruggles Gates.
If you can ever separate the eugenics from the racism, please come back.
---
### Author:  [@johngalt2014](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/johngalt2014)
#### Post date: [January 6, 2014, 2:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-federal-eugenics-program/677993/10 "2014-01-06T02:43:27Z")
BrainGlutton. Your points and references on eugenics are appreciated.
But the hypothetical policy I am proposing would be entirely voluntary, so why should my personal view, or your personal view, or anybody’s personal view on eugenics matter? Can’t the individual decide if he wants to avail one of the options himself/herself?
After all, isn’t more choice always better? (As long as it really is voluntary)
I’m not sure what racism has to do with this discussion so I will ignore you comment about it.
---
### Author:  [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)
#### Post date: [January 6, 2014, 2:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-federal-eugenics-program/677993/11 "2014-01-06T02:48:49Z")
I find it a little amusing that in the novel from which the OP chose his username, two hero-protagonists (Dagny and Hank) have brothers who are antagonist parasites/looters. So much for genetics.
---
### Author:  [@orcenio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/orcenio)
#### Post date: [January 6, 2014, 2:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-federal-eugenics-program/677993/12 "2014-01-06T02:51:41Z")
> [@johngalt2014](#):
>
> BrainGlutton. Your points and references on eugenics are appreciated.
>
> But the hypothetical policy I am proposing would be entirely voluntary, so why should my personal view, or your personal view, or anybody’s personal view on eugenics matter? Can’t the individual decide if he wants to avail one of the options himself/herself?
>
> After all, isn’t more choice always better? (As long as it really is voluntary)
>
> I’m not sure what racism has to do with this discussion so I will ignore you comment about it.
You simply haven’t addressed my question. Why should the US government pay its citizens to sterilize themselves?
---
### Author:  [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)
#### Post date: [January 6, 2014, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-federal-eugenics-program/677993/13 "2014-01-06T02:58:53Z")
> [@johngalt2014](#):
>
> I’m not sure what racism has to do with this discussion so I will ignore you comment about it.
That is quite incredibly disingenuous of you. It’s a thread about eugenics. Eugenics has **always** been bound up with racism since it was first conceived in modern times. Furthermore, this:
> [@johngalt2014](#):
>
> The assumption is (and it could be wrong), that the people who avail this offer will primarily be low income individuals. Low income correlates with low IQ, and IQ is hereditary. Hence, low IQ would be negatively selected, and over time general IQ in America would rise.
is a fairly transparent racial [dog whistle](http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Dog_whistle_politics). No way the person who thought this up was thinking in color-blind terms.
---
### Author:  [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)
#### Post date: [January 6, 2014, 3:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-federal-eugenics-program/677993/14 "2014-01-06T03:01:14Z")
> [@johngalt2014](#):
>
> But the hypothetical policy I am proposing would be entirely voluntary, so why should my personal view, or your personal view, or anybody’s personal view on eugenics matter?
Because it’s, as you state in the beginning, a eugenic policy. To justify spending tax dollars on it, you first have to justify eugenics as such.
> [@johngalt2014](#):
>
> Can’t the individual decide if he wants to avail one of the options himself/herself?
>
> After all, isn’t more choice always better? (As long as it really is voluntary)
People **already** have the choice to get sterilized. Many do. Usually they have to pay for it. A program to do it for free I could get behind, just as another aspect of UCH, but why pay them a **subsidy?**
---
### Author:  [@Claverhouse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Claverhouse)
#### Post date: [January 6, 2014, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-federal-eugenics-program/677993/15 "2014-01-06T03:03:02Z")
Although preferring a lower population myself, I’ve rather noticed that individuals heavily in favour of eugenics whether progressives as earlier or libertarians as later do have a point since they themselves should never reproduce.
---
### Author:  [@johngalt2014](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/johngalt2014)
#### Post date: [January 6, 2014, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-federal-eugenics-program/677993/16 "2014-01-06T03:03:02Z")
> [@orcenio](#):
>
> You simply haven’t addressed my question. Why should the US government pay its citizens to sterilize themselves?
Because preventing the conception of even one unwanted child could save US tax payers tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars in the long run – e.g. welfare, the prison system, the judicial system, law enforcement, security, etc. In short, there is a tremendous potential ROI for something like this.
---
### Author:  [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)
#### Post date: [January 6, 2014, 3:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-federal-eugenics-program/677993/17 "2014-01-06T03:05:52Z")
> [@johngalt2014](#):
>
> Because preventing the conception of even one unwanted child could save US tax payers tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars in the long run – e.g. welfare, the prison system, the judicial system, law enforcement, security, etc. In short, there is a tremendous potential ROI for something like this.
Free birth control and free abortions should cover that ground quite sufficiently, and as stated above I have no objection to free sterilizations, either; but to subsidize them is something you only do when trying to actively discourage reproduction of the target population.
---
### Author:  [@johngalt2014](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/johngalt2014)
#### Post date: [January 6, 2014, 3:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-federal-eugenics-program/677993/18 "2014-01-06T03:06:06Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#):
>
> A program to do it for free I could get behind, just as another aspect of UCH, but why pay them a **subsidy?**
Because with our [ever expanding] entitlement system, they are incentivized to procreate more. Free sterilization would do nothing to counter that.
---
### Author:  [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)
#### Post date: [January 6, 2014, 3:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-federal-eugenics-program/677993/19 "2014-01-06T03:08:27Z")
> [@johngalt2014](#):
>
> Because with our [ever expanding] entitlement system, they are incentivized to procreate more. Free sterilization would do nothing to counter that.
So what?
Hint: _Idiocracy_ is not a documentary.
---
### Author:  [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)
#### Post date: [January 6, 2014, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-federal-eugenics-program/677993/20 "2014-01-06T03:10:31Z")
Well, I’m willing to pay devil’s advocate here. With one caveat…
johngalt2014, you mention in your OP that you believe low income=low IQ. But IQ is a TERRIBLE indicator of future societal contributions. For anything such as you propose to work to a societal benefit from a eugenics standpoint - that is, for the betterment of the race genetically - you’d need something better. Hell, Paris Hilton is one of the richer people on the planet and I’d seriously consider paying good money to see very bad things happen to her. I think your thesis - assuming you’re not jumping on the hidden ‘low IQ=blacks’ and ‘blacks shouldn’t breed’ bandwagon - need serious work.
Now, on the other hand, I think there’s some serious possibilities in offering a cash payment for teen women to NOT become pregnant. I’d accept as a postulate that having children during one’s teen years has a negative impact on a woman’s future earning potential and other prospects. I also believe that economics is the study of incentives and that cash is one of the greatest incentives of all. Toss some sort of small payment towards teens (I’d bet it needn’t be much) for each quarter they don’t become pregnant and the payments cut off forever if they DO come down pregnant and you might just benefit both the kids and society as a whole.
But the eugenics things? Galt, you’re gonna have to make your case that you’re not one more scientific racialist before I’d buy that thesis about low IQ and such.
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-federal-eugenics-program/677993.md?page=2)