Zone1 Eugenics revisited

[Votto]

Richard Lynn, evolutionary psychologist who declared his belief in the benefits of eugenics – obituary

Richard Lynn, who has died aged 93, was an evolutionary psychologist whose work on the genetic and environmental influences on intelligence and race, and his belief in the value of genetic selection to improve the quality of the human population, led to his being described as “one of the most...

www.yahoo.com

Richard Lynn, who has died aged 93, was an evolutionary psychologist whose work on the genetic and environmental influences on intelligence and race, and his belief in the value of genetic selection to improve the quality of the human population, led to his being described as “one of the most unapologetic and raw ‘scientific’ racists operating today” and as an “unapologetic eugenicist”.

Although “scientific racism” – the idea that there are evolutionary bases for disparities in intelligence between racial and social groups – had been widely debunked by scholarly research, and rendered morally unacceptable following the horrors of the Nazi death camps and programmes of sterilising and killing the unfit and unwell, the publication of The Bell Curve by Charles Murray and Richard Herrnstein in 1994 renewed the debate linking intelligence with ethnicity and social class.

I would like to discuss this topic which interests me greatly.

But before giving my own opinion, I would like to hear from all of you.

 

[1srelluc]

 

[Anomalism]

Meh.

I just wonder what certain types aim to do with that type of knowledge. Let's say it's true, hypothetically. Let's say black people are less intelligent on average, and we can prove it with science. What do we do with that knowledge? How is it useful?

 

[Votto]

Like Margaret Sanger, Charles Darwin also viewed the Black race as inferior. Scientists back then all thought this.

Here is a quote.

“With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, if so urged by hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with a certain and great present evil. Hence we must bear without complaining the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely the weaker and inferior members of society not marrying so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased, though this is more to be hoped for than expected, by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage.”
― Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man

Charles seems to be arguing here, that man could treat humans like livestock, which is to breed towards a genetically preferred race. After all, if you can do it with cattle, why not with humans?

But at the same time, he argues that the noble nature of man prevents him from simply discarding those in the human race that are harming the gene pool or even preventing them from breeding.

I'm not sure what nobility has to do with science, which is perhaps why Hitler did what he did. Hitler ignored the nobility part, and simply tried to breed a human race based on desirable traits he liked and saw scientifically beneficial.

So are there traits that are beneficial? For example, is breeding intelligence preferable to not doing so?

 

[martybegan]

Meh.

I just wonder what certain types aim to do with that type of knowledge. Let's say it's true, hypothetically. Let's say black people are less intelligent on average, and we can prove it with science. What do we do with that knowledge? How is it useful?

In the end it's all about averages anyway, which doesn't mean people of any race cannot be smarter or dumber, more athletic or less athletic, more moral or less moral, or any other category than a member of any other race or ethnicity.

 

[Votto]

Meh.

I just wonder what certain types aim to do with that type of knowledge. Let's say it's true, hypothetically. Let's say black people are less intelligent on average, and we can prove it with science. What do we do with that knowledge? How is it useful?

If you want strong livestock and healthy, then you breed accordingly.

Should this be done with humans?

 

[Votto]

In the end it's all about averages anyway, which doesn't mean people of any race cannot be smarter or dumber, more athletic or less athletic, more moral or less moral, or any other category than a member of any other race or ethnicity.

I think it is fair to say that if you have two people having a baby who are intelligent, odds are the kid will also be.

The question becomes, does humanity value intelligence enough to only let intelligent people reproduce?

Is this desirable?

 

[Anomalism]

If you want strong livestock and healthy, then you breed accordingly.

Should this be done with humans?

Mandating who can breed and who can't? Nah boss, that's a hard pass for me.

 

[Anomalism]

I think it is fair to say that if you have two people having a baby who are intelligent, odds are the kid will also be.

The question becomes, does humanity value intelligence enough to only let intelligent people reproduce?

Is this desirable?

I hope you're entertaining it just for the sake of discussion. It's a bad look if you'd actually consider allowing the government to dictate who can breed and who can't.

 

[Donald H]

Richard Lynn, evolutionary psychologist who declared his belief in the benefits of eugenics – obituary

Richard Lynn, who has died aged 93, was an evolutionary psychologist whose work on the genetic and environmental influences on intelligence and race, and his belief in the value of genetic selection to improve the quality of the human population, led to his being described as “one of the most...

www.yahoo.com

Richard Lynn, who has died aged 93, was an evolutionary psychologist whose work on the genetic and environmental influences on intelligence and race, and his belief in the value of genetic selection to improve the quality of the human population, led to his being described as “one of the most unapologetic and raw ‘scientific’ racists operating today” and as an “unapologetic eugenicist”.

Although “scientific racism” – the idea that there are evolutionary bases for disparities in intelligence between racial and social groups – had been widely debunked by scholarly research, and rendered morally unacceptable following the horrors of the Nazi death camps and programmes of sterilising and killing the unfit and unwell, the publication of The Bell Curve by Charles Murray and Richard Herrnstein in 1994 renewed the debate linking intelligence with ethnicity and social class.

I would like to discuss this topic which interests me greatly.

But before giving my own opinion, I would like to hear from all of you.

All else being equal, I believe that all persons of the human race with differing skin colours, have exactly the same potential for intelligence as can be measured by an IQ test.

It must be clearly stated that to believe otherwise is to be a racist of the worst ilk and to be a supporter of Hitler's brand of fascism.

And I'll go even further and say that this tendency to support racism and fascism has become the agenda of up to half of Americans.

Now you need to take a shot at your theory!

 

[Votto]

Mandating who can breed and who can't? Nah boss, that's a hard pass for me.

We see how valued intelligence is in society. People will pay big bucks to you if you are smart. So, intelligence is seen as a virtue for society, as where a lack of intelligence is seen as a drag on society.

But is this assumption true?

After all, what threatens the existence of the human race more? Is it apes in the forest, or mankind?

It seems to me that the higher the intelligence, the greater the capacity for harm.

Then again, the reverse can also be said, that is, the greater the capacity for doing good.

 

[martybegan]

I think it is fair to say that if you have two people having a baby who are intelligent, odds are the kid will also be.

The question becomes, does humanity value intelligence enough to only let intelligent people reproduce?

Is this desirable?

I'm not a fan of the whole "you can't have a baby thing" via government fiat.

 

[Votto]

I hope you're entertaining it just for the sake of discussion. It's a bad look if you'd actually consider allowing the government to dictate who can breed and who can't.

Realize that government is largely secular, so this very well be where the human race is headed, especially with all the talk about reducing population levels. Their only concern is science and control, not morality.

I in no way am condoning any of it.

 

[martybegan]

We see how valued intelligence is in society. People will pay big bucks to you if you are smart. So, intelligence is seen as a virtue for society, as where a lack of intelligence is seen as a drag on society.

But is this assumption true?

After all, what threatens the existence of the human race more? Is it apes in the forest, or mankind?

It seems to me that the higher the intelligence, the greater the capacity for harm.

Then again, the reverse can also be said, that is, the greater the capacity for doing good.

Looking at the intelligence curves of what most people agree is the worst regime ever, i.e. Nazi Germany, Most were moderately intelligent, teachers, civil servants, with a smattering of smarter people and outright thugs.

Hitler himself, Rosenberg, Von Sirach, and Frank were the average to slightly above average, Scheer, Goering the above average, and Rohem and Striecher the idiots.

 

[Votto]

All else being equal, I believe that all persons of the human race with differing skin colours, have exactly the same potential for intelligence as can be measured by an IQ test.

It must be clearly stated that to believe otherwise is to be a racist of the worst ilk and to be a supporter of Hitler's brand of fascism.

And I'll go even further and say that this tendency to support racism and fascism has become the agenda of up to half of Americans.

Now you need to take a shot at your theory!

It's not my theory.

Eugenics is with us every day with abortion, something the Left champions

In New York City alone, there have been more Black abortions than births.

And about 86% of abortion centers are targeted in minority neighborhoods.

Margaret Sanger, who founded Panned Parenthood, thought that trying to limit them from reproducing would benefit humanity.

 

[martybegan]

All else being equal, I believe that all persons of the human race with differing skin colours, have exactly the same potential for intelligence as can be measured by an IQ test.

It must be clearly stated that to believe otherwise is to be a racist of the worst ilk and to be a supporter of Hitler's brand of fascism.

And I'll go even further and say that this tendency to support racism and fascism has become the agenda of up to half of Americans.

Now you need to take a shot at your theory!

if it were fact, why would stating it be as bad as Hilter? Hilter was an all around "Aryans are best" guy, not just via intellect.

Doing things like mandating some races to be limited in their opportunities, THAT would be racist.

 

[Votto]

if it were fact, why would stating it be as bad as Hilter? Hilter was an all around "Aryans are best" guy, not just via intellect.

Doing things like mandating some races to be limited in their opportunities, THAT would be racist.

I think that the assumption was that "whitey" dominates the planet in terms of income and military might, so he must be superior.

 

[Votto]

“If you knew a woman who was pregnant, who had 8 kids already, three who were deaf, two who were blind, one mentally retarded, and she had syphilis, would you recommend that she have an abortion?
















































































You would? Well congratulations — you just killed Beethoven!”

 

[martybegan]

I think that the assumption was that "whitey" dominates the planet in terms of income and military might, so he must be superior.

So was Chinese-ey the uber race back in the middle ages?

What about Muslim-ey at the same time?

 

[Coyote]

Like Margaret Sanger, Charles Darwin also viewed the Black race as inferior. Scientists back then all thought this.

Here is a quote.

“With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, if so urged by hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with a certain and great present evil. Hence we must bear without complaining the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely the weaker and inferior members of society not marrying so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased, though this is more to be hoped for than expected, by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage.”
― Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man

Charles seems to be arguing here, that man could treat humans like livestock, which is to breed towards a genetically preferred race. After all, if you can do it with cattle, why not with humans?

But at the same time, he argues that the noble nature of man prevents him from simply discarding those in the human race that are harming the gene pool or even preventing them from breeding.

I'm not sure what nobility has to do with science, which is perhaps why Hitler did what he did. Hitler ignored the nobility part, and simply tried to breed a human race based on desirable traits he liked and saw scientifically beneficial.

So are there traits that are beneficial? For example, is breeding intelligence preferable to not doing so?

That’s what eugenics is. Determining what human qualities are ”undesirable” according to the social standards of the day and eliminating them from the gene pool through a selection process. The only difference with Hitler is he had the power and amassed social and political support to carry it out to it’s ultimate end.

Eugenics is playing with fire.