Get rid of requirements for anyone to take care of their kids.
Poor people already lack the means to care for children for the most part. Get rid of child support payments and encourage rich people to breed! Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are very careful not to have kids in our current system. They should have harems and have hundreds of grandkids by now.
:dubious: Look, when you push something openly characterized as a eugenics proposal, the burden is on you to show it’s not racist. Eugenics have been bound up with racism from the beginning. Also, all his cites are from white-supremacist publications.
I have an even better plan. Let’s arbitrarily define anybody who has a million dollars as being rich (and therefore intelligent).
So if we want to increase the number of intelligent people in the country, we just need to find some person who has a hundred million dollars. And we confiscate ninety-nine million dollars from him and give ninety-nine poor people a million dollars each. The original intelligent person still has a million dollars so he’s still rich and intelligent. And we’ve created ninety-nine new rich and intelligent people.
Do this for every person in the country who has over a million dollars and we can create hundreds of thousands of new rich intelligent people.
It’s hard to ignore the reality that every person who’s called for eugenics in the last hundred years usually ends up revealing they regard paler skin as a desirable trait we should be encouraging. In a theoretical sense, it’s possible that the OP is the first non-racist eugenics proponent to come along but we can’t ignore the odds.
You sure you want those people in your country?
Oh… looser… heh, my bad.
Budget Player’s comment on Saudi women strikes me as bang-on; surely there are tens of thousands of Saudi women who could have been competent (or even brilliant) doctors, scientists and engineers, and tens of thousands of Saudi girls who still have this potential, but their society is ordered in such a way that they’re pre-emptively denied. What the OP suggests is relatively mild, but I suggest similarly counter-productive.
Any society that restricts women to domestic roles is depriving itself of half its potential pool of talent in all other fields. And all it gets in return is free domestic labor. Not that that is a thing without value, but it does seem an unfair and unwise exchange to me.
That is not a quibble. Not only does the Louise and Betty data pair sound a lot like the Kennedy and Lincoln similarities, I have never seen what pre-identified criteria were selected for evaluation. If the criteria were not pre-selected, with scientifically based tolerances, it’s less reliable than anecdote.
Well, … yes, you’re right, it was kind of arrogant and a poorly supported argument.
Can you support that statement? Because I think people may honestly have wanted to spare children from being born to misery and despair. And true poverty, which many Americans have never seen in this country, appears to be absolutely horrible.
I would argue that “eugenics were quickly adopted by racists” would be more accurate. Consider - do you think that genetic engineering - or even first trimester abortions - to prevent children with … any genetic anomaly that results in a short and painful life to be inherently evil, or racist?
I’m honestly surprised at the question; I thought everybody who knew anything about the history of eugenics knew that. From the Wiki page on Scientific Racism:
I would regard that as another way of saying the same thing. They’ve been bound together from the beginning.
But it is a fact that most early eugenicists, being white people of the early 20th Century, were racists, as practically all white people of the early 20th Century were, including those highly educated, and even including those scientifically educated.
Not at all. But “eugenics” usually refers to a program to discourage or prohibit certain classes of persons from reproducing at all, as an animal breeder gelds or slaughters the culls. The whole concept predates genetic engineering.
I really don’t think that’s true. Maybe as a national program, but there’s a reason why gene testing is highly valued among expectant parents. Is it not eugenics to abort a fetus that is going to be blind, retarded or crippled in some other fashion?
eta: though I see that was just brought up. Didn’t read til the end! oops.
I don’t know if it’s fair to say most eugenicists were targeting racists, but the only real eugenics program that actually succeeded in becoming policy in the U.S. (I think) was the sterilization of the intellectually disabled from the 1920s through the 1970s in several states. Its victims were from all races.
No. I know enough though. I understand that when it’s some kind of “movement” they are most often racist. However the true history of eugenics includes abandoning crippled babies in the woods and aborting fetuses with debilitating genes.
That’s a little bit broader than what is usually thought of as eugenics in the modern sense. Eugenics is a philosophy and social policy encouraging reproduction among those most suited to contribute genetically to society as a whole and discouraging those least suited to contribute. Abortion and infanticide aren’t necessarily motivated by such a philosophy. Consider senicide, for example, the killing or abandonment of elderly members of a group, particularly in times of extreme want or famine. Senicide doesn’t occur because of a policy of preventing the passage of inferior genetics to society - whatever genes the elderly have to contribute are already in the pool. Senicide occurs because resources are scarce. Infanticide and abandonment of children doesn’t necessarily occur to discourage the genetically inferior from reproducing, it occurs because resources are too scarce to use on children who cannot be fed or who will not survive. Abortion of a fetus due to debilitating genetics doesn’t occur as part of a overarching philosophy or social policy to prevent the genetically inferior from reproducing, it’s a personal decision motivated to spare a child from a painful life or to avoid a burden that the biological parents are unable to bear.
It is too late to discuss each point, but I would argue that is does not matter if the concept predates genetic engineering, if genetic engineering would affect the stated goals.
The interesting question is, would we support genetic engineering to prevent known risks, knowing we cannot understand all the changes that would result from the select splice, and thereby introduce new risks?
Quite apart from any talk of genetically inheritable traits ISTM it’s in the best interests of both society as a whole as well as poverty-stricken groups for poor people to have fewer children.
For one thing, having children prematurely can complicate one’s efforts to lift one’s self out of poverty, but also children growing up in poverty very often inherit traits that can perpetuate the cycle of poverty. And if a community has a high concentration of young people who suffered the effects of growing up in poverty, that can have a multiplier effect in undermining efforts in reducing unemployment and improving schools, etc. in a particular area.
So providing people with cash incentives to delay if not avoid reproducing is not aimed at rendering a particular group extinct but in helping them become “leaner” and thus more likely to prosper collectively or individually.
History disagrees. Regardless of what you think it should or could be about, trying to make groups extinct is what eugenics has always actually been about. And history also demonstrates that it won’t stop at cash incentives; when the targets fail to cooperate with the program then it will escalate to deception, coercion and outright force.