It was NOT just the “intellectually disabled”, or those perceived as such. There was quite a laundry list for sterilizing people against their will, or even their knowledge, even as as children.
George Carlin once had a novel idea for cleaning up the gene pool: Give the Civil War re-enactors live ammunition! 
That’s true, but it was primarily the intellectually disabled. Of course, back then, the idea that poverty/criminality and intelligence went hand-in-hand was even more prevalent, so the lines between the categories were blurred. Poor people or criminals or just poorly educated people were often falsely labeled as intellectually disabled, and then sterilized.
Eugenics is a terrible idea, even disregarding politics, racism, and civil rights. It is predicated on the assumption that natural selection is no longer happening, or that it is deficient in some way.
The fact is that natural selection works. We are adapted to our environment, and as a species we are becoming more adapted to it every generation. There is no way to tell ahead of time what traits are important for reproductive fitness and survival.
If having a low IQ or being physically handicapped is inheritable and affects reproductive ability, it will tend to be slowly eliminated from the gene pool. If it doesn’t, eugenics won’t work anyway; meaning it will tend to produce individuals that on average are less fit, not more so.
We assume that strength and intelligence are hereditary. Certainly the “capacity” for strength and intelligence is genetic. But who here has maximized their genetic capacity for intelligence or strength? Very few. Which means that eugenecists are going to end up sterilizing the uneducated and untrained, rather than those who are actually afflicted with genes for weakness and stupidity.
If eugenics proponents had their way, we’d all be designer puppy-mill creatures, beautiful and clever and helpless, with a tendency for congenital diseases like hip displaysia and chronic ear infections. We’d need a (biologically) fit race of overseers to tend to us because we could no longer function in the wild.
Let’s let nature take its course. It has given us humanity as it currently exists, and we certainly can’t hope to do any better through breeding. Medicine and culture and technology will continue to better our bodies and our lives and our environment. There’s no reason to start a new Kennel Club to ensure your great great grandchildren will be better off.
Oh, quite a few of us are definitely pro-eugenics. We just have a different target for our sterilization programs. I’d personally start with founders and followers of the Pioneer Fund, but it’s too late for ol’ J. Phillipe.
I’d like your cite a lot better if the authors didn’t have “Bell Curve defenders” written on their foreheads.
I think the goal of eugenics would be to remove things like hip dysplasia from the population. That’s the whole point, isn’t it?
Not that I’m advocating for it - deciding who is allowed to have kids is a violation of basic human rights. The eugenicists-in-charge would probably not have let me have kids because of my damn feet.
And if the OP had started with “I propose a national program of genetic screening, to look for markers for specific inheritable diseases, and encouragements to those afflicted to forego reproducing”, then that might be okay. Instead it’s a variant on “poor people are destroying America; we should pay them to stop breeding and since they’re poor and presumably stupid, they’d go for it.”
Unintended consequences. It’s not like dog breeders actively want hip dysplasia, either.
That’s the goal of dog breeders too, right? I mean, they didn’t breed hip displaysia on purpose, it was a byproduct of selecting for other traits that they deemed to be a higher priority.
This is the inevitable result of eugenics. Pretty, clever people who end up being less fit for their environments than they would be if nature took its course. Because our eugenic overlords will prioritize things differently than nature, and nature is what we’re living in and what we should be adapted to, not the aesthetic satisfaction of our masters.
We’re not dogs, so we shouldn’t breed like them. The “eugenics” I believe in takes place, if you can call it that, every time somebody chooses to mate with someone else, or chooses not to, based on inheritable traits. If you want to make humanity better, don’t breed with weak or stupid people, and I’ll do the same, and that’s a fair way to better the population while everyone keeps their freedom.
In a rational world, maybe. But look at what actual eugenics proponents (including the OP) are saying. They’re not targeting hip dysplasia. They want to eliminate things like crime and poverty. Try and find a reputable scientist that will tell you there are genes for crime or poverty.
But any eugenicist knows the Truth. The problem is Those People. They’re just naturally criminals - it’s in their nature. They’re not decent people like us (notice that no eugenicist ever feels his own genes need improving).
And then comes the really scary part, where eugenicists decide to be “efficient” and avoid sentimentality. After all, if you’re already working on eliminating future generations of criminals and poor people, why not work on eliminating the current generation of them? It’s just being rational.
Not necessarily. I had a vasectomy last year, partly because I don’t like what’s in my genetic makeup. It’s not uncommon for people to fear passing on disorders, or, in my case, terrible vision, underweight-ness, and other things about my appearance.
Indeed - the eugenists-in-charge in the 1950’s my sure my spouse would never have children. Without even mentioning the surgery to his parents, much less him.
The really stupid thing? The problem that “justified” it in their minds isn’t genetic.
It actually would seem to target the poor or thrifty- which again- is a poor eugenics program.
It’s whack a mole. Guide dogs are the result of a very rigorous eugenics program. and are bred for characteristics such as intelligence, general health, and amiability. They also suffer from elevated rates of hip dysplasia. (Two of our four puppies had it.) Select against that and you’ll wind up with some other problem.
Guide dog puppies which don’t make it get sterilized and given to good homes. A bit harder to do that with humans.
Throughout the world, the best way of reducing population growth is to raise the standard of living.
As I understand it, poor women don’t have children to make money, but have children out of boredom, loneliness, and the need for affection. Some small amount of money is not going to change that. Give them jobs, and the problem will go away.
Poor women also have children because it may be the only insurance they have against hard times. For most of history the only old-age pension anyone had was the willingness of their surviving children to take care of thm.
I don’t have kids. I’m saving up for a well-furnished ice-floe.
I was thinking of the US, but that is very true in many places, and one of the major reasons why raising the standard of living lowers the birth rate. That and high infant mortality.
Boredom and loneliness? No, more like children are, or were in recent history, less likely to survive to adulthood in their country, or children are the only source of support when someone gets old (no retirement savings). But you’re right - development is the solution, as real-world experience is showing.