Again, yes we do, if we’re going to spend tax money on sterilization subsidies. If eugenics is not the basis for that policy, then what is?!
That’s a joke I don’t get.
And sterilization. That is a choice now.
How about population control?
Or, if we want to go with eugenics, what in the 3 articles I referenced above do you disagree/take issue with?
Another option is to not use tax dollars, but rather allow for anonymous donations. Would you be ok with that?
Why couldn’t it? Those field-workers are peasants. China is historically a nation of peasants. A lot of those Chinese peasants have indeed taken advantage of 20th- and 21st-Century opportunities to become middle-class professionals or businesscritters or academics or scientists – and, so have and so will a lot of our Latino-Americans.
Your comparison is flawed.
If they choose unprotected promiscuous sex, lots of children out of wedlock, alcohol, cigarettes, junk food, obesity, and drugs – society pays the tab for the long term effects of those choices.
If they choose sterilization, not only do they get paid, but they also save society money in the long run.
What about it? Unlike some countries, the U.S. is nowhere near to being overpopulated.
The fact that all three were written for and published by white-supremacist/scientific-racist organizations.
Argumentum ad hominem is not always a fallacy. The most important piece of information in any message is the name of the messenger.
I’d have no particular objection. But I very much doubt anonymous donations could subsidize enough voluntarily sterilizations to effect the gene pool in any measurable respect.
Ok. So let me get this straight. China is actively trying furiously to elevate it’s “peasants” to become middle class or “higher.” Here we have an opportunity to positively select for that same middle class or “higher”, effectively skipping over the peasants stage, but you think it’s better for us to have more peasants, and let them over a few generations themselves rise to middle class or higher. Is that about right?
No, we don’t, because it’s not a matter of heredity.
I see. So we should wait until we are overpopulated and then do something. Ok.
I’m glad at least you owned up to your ad hominem arguments.
Great. We agree on something :). I have a feeling though that if that were to occur and it did produce enough funds to sponsor a program like this, you would than rally to oppose it – am I right?
Galt, you keep harping on the issue of choice, but people already have these choices. They can choice to be sterilized and have easy access to fairly effective and affordable barrier birth control.
If the discussion is just about choice, why bring eugenics into it?
If the discussion is about eugenics, why try to obscure it with the issue of individual choice?
And I would be interested in your studies correlating income and IQ, because I would like to see how they controlled for other parameters.
You’re shifting gears there so fast the gearbox just fell on the road. Population control is one thing, and eugenics quite another.
Preventing overpopulation is another benefit of this program.
But you are right, I am pro-eugenics, and it is apparent that most of you here are not. And the crux of the matter seems to be that I believe that IQ is hereditary and you all do not. To me it seems like that’s what this all boils down to, am I right?
There are a lot of studies out there, some cited by the 3 links I referenced above. Writing them off as “racist” like BG is doing is simply an emotive attempt at distracting from the issue at hand.
I wouldn’t much care. A fool and his [blank] soon are [blank].
Please explain why you are, then.
Please explain why you do, then.
Not entirely. There is a lot of controversy over IQ as a measure of anything, and as to whether there even is such thing as a general intelligence factor g of human minds. See the “multiple intelligences” theory of Howard Gardner.
I’m inclined to think your thesis is not inspired by racialism, but puritanism.
We are all, every person on this planet, descended from slaves, criminals and idiots.
We get by somehow.
The two are very closely associated in American history.
The thing is you’re proposing a massive new government program. Before you go spending all those tax dollars, we’re going to need to hear something a lot better than “I have a theory. So why not try this out?”
We want to see some evidence - accepted by the mainstream scientific establishment - that traits like criminality, poverty, and intelligence are genetic. Because without that evidence your proposed program is nothing but a boondoggle.
Heck, if you want to select for middle class or higher, increase middle-class opportunity and education.
What I really was hoping to hear is the sentiments of the staunch pro-lifers – I wondered if they would take objection this. Hopefully one of them will reply at some point.
As far as the rest, it all comes down to the data… IQ, heredity, cost, benefit, etc. Obviously that would all be worked out and some sort of consensus would be reached on these issues. To avoid all the back and forth on these questions for which as of now we do not have definitive answers, I should have probably framed the original question in the context of… let’s assume IQ is hereditary, and the cost:benefit ratio of such a program is favorable, in that case…