I’m trying to follow you here. Currently, there’s about a million or so agricultural workers in the United States, which is about 1% of our population, and the numbers are projected to decline. Cite. There are also about 340 million agricultural workers in China, which is about one-fourth of their population, and those numbers are probably declining, though more slowly.Cite.
The reason the numbers are declining in China is simple: economic activity is expanding, offering new opportunities for social and economic advancement. It doesn’t have anything to do with peasants getting smarter, as far as I can tell.
First, do you believe that China has a eugenics program in place that is creating their economic growth?
I don’t believe so. If China can advance its economy without eugenics, why is eugenics necessary to advance our economy?
Second question: just over a century ago, 70% or more of the United States population were farmworkers, and we managed to turn into the most advanced economy the world has ever seen. Why is the farmworker population now a serious challenge to our country?
Third, every modern economy in the world was once - and sometimes not too long ago – a peasant, agrarian economy. Typically, birthrates drop as a country gets richer: basically, wealthier people have fewer babies, and laborers tend to have more. It seems to me that the people you regard at being not smart – those who are manual laborers – are always reproducing at higher rates. If that’s true, how did any economy manage to modernize without eugenics?
For the poor, our “entitlement system” has actually be contracting since 1996, there is no incentive to pop out kids, despite myths to the contrary. For the wealthy it’s been expanding and we may be in agreement that they rich need their welfare cut off…
First of all, drop the scare quotes around peasants. They really are (or were) peasants. Secondly, China is not “selecting” them by ruthless extermination of the unfit, which is what eugenics boils down to, they’re elevating them by improved nutrition and education, thereby allowing these people to reach their true potentials, or at least more of that potential than they would otherwise.
You get fewer peasants two ways: exterminating people, or feeding/educating them and turning peasants into the middle-class. China’s government, which is not known to be particuarly benevolent towards individuals, is choosing the latter route.
Correct. I feel promotion of eugenics is unnecessary and, given past abuses, more likely to do harm than good.
Correct. IQ is, at best, weakly inheritable and easily altered by environment. Also, the highest financial success is correlated only with slightly greater than average IQ. Extremely high IQ people are not extraordinarily more successful by that measure.
This is not an insult, it’s a rhetorical point. How does it feel to be on the other side of this issue? And if you reject my donation, why? Is it not enough money? I could raise more.
First of all, as others have mentioned, this is not a eugenics program unless you are assuming that poor people and criminals are purely products of genetics, which is not supported by modern science. It’s just a population reduction program.
Second, your program is unethical, even though it is “voluntary.” It puts poor people and criminals in the position of choosing between two very bad choices.
Not to agree with galt, but some of the posters here are making an unfounded assumption. It’s actually very difficult for nulliparous people (particularly women) to get sterilized in the US today. It can involve years of paternalistic and condescending rejections, doctor-shopping, pleading-of-one’s case, and the like. Since some women can’t easily tolerate (or perhaps afford) other effective contraceptives, this leaves them at risk for unplanned pregnancy. Even if “the choice is whether or not to have sex,” as some huffy “pro-lifers” say, rape is a possibility.
This is why I agree with some of those here who point out that galt’s proposals are actually correct in concept if not in execution. In other words, free sterilization and long-acting reversible contraceptives are actually a money-saving investment, but when people are bribed to do anything, it’s not really an environment of free choice.
So, since there’s a foolproof way to save a lot of money and crash the abortion rate, why aren’t more conservatives in favor of the idea? Some are (I don’t have the links available, but I can get them), and I hope that the rest will have their counterproductive prudishness put to the test and shamed before the whole world.
Oh, but they do. Dawn Eden, Jill Stanek, the yahoos outside of clinics, Albert Mohler, etc.
Preventing abortion by preventing pregnancy isn’t acceptable to them, partially because they fear Muslim births, but mostly because they feel sex must have consequences, and then everyone should live with those consequences.
I agree entirely, but johngalt2014 wants to go a step beyond free sterilization, he wants to offer to pay people to get sterilized, on the assumption that only genetically inferior people will take the offer.
The people who are objecting for moral and legal and scientific reasons are correct, but just to add another problem, the U.S. already has a graying population. Combining that trend with a reduction in the number of young people sounds like a horrible idea.
I do think the OP’s idea needs some more support for it to be worthy of serious consideration. But to whip out the accusations of racist dog whistle’s isn’t justified.
The OP didn’t bring up race at all. It’s odd how some people seem to read race into every issue and discussion even when it’s not there.
The OP might turn out to be a clansman who has nothing but racism on his mind with this proposal. But why don’t we wait until he actually says something racist before whipping out those accusations?