NationStates Jolt Archive

I was pondering ways to ease the burden of outsourcing, to create a more competitive work-force, to increase the standard of education, and to create a more informed populace. I believe that all these problems could be rectified through a simple solution.

We should encourage the most intelligent people to breed via monetary incentives -- for example, we'll pay someone with an IQ of 125-135 $500 dollars to give either sperm or ova to the state. There may be a similar pay scale for the most athletic and such. We then need a subject in which to implant the resultant fetus. We'll pay each woman who consents to having the fetus implanted inside her, say, $10,000 dollars (that's quite close to minimum wage for doing nothing at all). After the woman gives birth, the baby will be raised by the state according to the most modern baby-care techniques to maximize the capacity of the baby, after which point he/she will be given to a loving family. It's like evolution, only we are the driving force behind it, implementing our own version of natural selection. In the long run, we'll come an ultra-intelligent, hyper-competitive economy and outstrip any other country in the world. It seems to be a win-win scenario.

Hitler Youth, anyone?

First Bob the Millionaire, now this. Wow! Two in a row.
You are killing me here.

No matter how well bred they are they're still gunna be fucked up if they're raised by the state with no sense of family.

Doing almost nothign at all? I know many women which would object greatly to that, and no way is minimum wage enough to sustain a pregnant woman ina nything like the level of care you'd want for your super humans.

And lets not even go into the problems of childcare techniques

I was pondering ways to ease the burden of outsourcing, to create a more competitive work-force, to increase the standard of education, and to create a more informed populace. I believe that all these problems could be rectified through a simple solution.

We should encourage the most intelligent people to breed via monetary incentives -- for example, we'll pay someone with an IQ of 125-135 $500 dollars to give either sperm or ova to the state. There may be a similar pay scale for the most athletic and such. We then need a subject in which to implant the resultant fetus. We'll pay each woman who consents to having the fetus implanted inside her, say, $10,000 dollars (that's quite close to minimum wage for doing nothing at all). After the woman gives birth, the baby will be raised by the state according to the most modern baby-care techniques to maximize the capacity of the baby, after which point he/she will be given to a loving family. It's like evolution, only we are the driving force behind it, implementing our own version of natural selection. In the long run, we'll come an ultra-intelligent, hyper-competitive economy and outstrip any other country in the world. It seems to be a win-win scenario.

I like this idea, it would certainly create a Brave New World

(sits back and waits for someone to get it)

...blah blah...We'll pay each woman who consents to having the fetus implanted inside her, say, $10,000 dollars (that's quite close to minimum wage for doing nothing at all). ...snip....

You are obviously a man (or boy) who has never lived with a pregnant woman.

Oh, and why don't you just invest more money in your education system. I think I can guess where the USA could save several billion a week (or whatever the war costs now).

Hitler Youth, anyone?

My bad, not the Hitler Youth, but the Lebensborn:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebensborn

the last thread was stupid, this is stupid and scary

$10,000 dollars (that's quite close to minimum wage for doing nothing at all).

i think many pregnant women would contest your claim that being pregnant is doing nothing at all. and why should it be below minimum wage. a pregnant woman eats more, requires frequent medical checkups, that's not covered by minimum wage let alone les than that.

regardless of the eugenics question, a few clever heads at the top will not sustain let alone grow an economy. top down like that wont work

No matter how well bred they are they're still gunna be fucked up if they're raised by the state with no sense of family.

A sense of family is extraneous. All that is required is efficiency and productivity in the work-force. They will also have a family, assuming they are adopted. Otherwise, they will be raised as foster children, in the same way numerous other children are. As long as they're intelligent, who cares if they know who Daddy is or not?

IQ is not genetic. It's almost entirely influenced by upbringing, as all it measures is one's ability to take the IQ test.

I like this idea, it would certainly create a Brave New World

(sits back and waits for someone to get it)

yes well done ;)

A sense of family is extraneous. All that is required is efficiency and productivity in the work-force. They will also have a family, assuming they are adopted. Otherwise, they will be raised as foster children, in the same way numerous other children are. As long as they're intelligent, who cares if they know who Daddy is or not?

why care about anything, as long as you treat human beings as comodities and manage to operate without any shred of human compassion.

A sense of family is extraneous. All that is required is efficiency and productivity in the work-force. They will also have a family, assuming they are adopted. Otherwise, they will be raised as foster children, in the same way numerous other children are. As long as they're intelligent, who cares if they know who Daddy is or not?

what is it, delta semi-moron or something? i can't remember. but i'm pretty sure i know what mtae is going to be in in this brave new world.

i think many pregnant women would contest your claim that being pregnant is doing nothing at all. and why should it be below minimum wage. a pregnant woman eats more, requires frequent medical checkups, that's not covered by minimum wage let alone les than that.

The pricing would be flexible and would represent the economics behind supply and demand. If the price necessary is $25,000, then tax-payers will have to subsidize such women. To further encourage women into this scheme, we could also cut off welfare for women who are capable of getting pregnant but refuse their patriotic duty.

we could also cut off welfare for women who are capable of getting pregnant but refuse their patriotic duty.

OK, that's it, I have lost any belief that you are serious. That's just too over the top.

he is on some form of wind up. there is no way anyone who can operate a computer is that stupid

that or he is 14

The pricing would be flexible and would represent the economics behind supply and demand. If the price necessary is $25,000, then tax-payers will have to subsidize such women. To further encourage women into this scheme, we could also cut off welfare for women who are capable of getting pregnant but refuse their patriotic duty.

ha! it get's better.

OK, that's it, I have lost any belief that you are serious. That's just too over the top.

Maybe that is a bit harsh, true. In either case, I just realized a better method of implementation. Instead of sending women criminals to jail, they can have the choice of having their sentence reduced provided they get pregnant. Then nobody loses out.

Maybe that is a bit harsh, true. In either case, I just realized a better method of implementation. Instead of sending women criminals to jail, they can have the choice of having their sentence reduced provided they get pregnant. Then nobody loses out.

oh for fuck sake! what planet are you on? are you even human?

he is on some form of wind up. there is no way anyone who can operate a computer is that stupid

that or he is 14

Instead of resorting to vapid, inane, tiresome ad hominem assaults, you should attempt to "poke holes" in my theory, as it were. If you cannot do that, then that means you cannot find a logical flaw in my proposition. I'll take that as an acknowledgement of the soundness of my plan. Thank you. :)

Who else wants popcorn? This is the best comedy I've seen for quite a while. Quick, someone get him to say something stupider!

Instead of resorting to vapid, inane, tiresome ad hominem assaults, you should attempt to "poke holes" in my theory, as it were. If you cannot do that, then that means you cannot find a logical flaw in my proposition. I'll take that as an acknowledgement of the soundness of my plan. Thank you. :)

I don't care about poking holes in your theory, unless it makes you say something funny again . . .

Instead of resorting to vapid, inane, tiresome ad hominem assaults, you should attempt to "poke holes" in my theory, as it were. If you cannot do that, then that means you cannot find a logical flaw in my proposition. I'll take that as an acknowledgement of the soundness of my plan. Thank you. :)

your theory fails on humanity more than anything else. the 'logic' of it has already been refuted.

Instead of resorting to vapid, inane, tiresome ad hominem assaults, you should attempt to "poke holes" in my theory, as it were. If you cannot do that, then that means you cannot find a logical flaw in my proposition. I'll take that as an acknowledgement of the soundness of my plan. Thank you. :)

I already poked holes in your argument. The big gaping giant hole is that you have taken any degree of human compassion out of the equation and are treating human beings like a comodity.

the last thread was stupid, this is stupid and scary



i think many pregnant women would contest your claim that being pregnant is doing nothing at all. and why should it be below minimum wage. a pregnant woman eats more, requires frequent medical checkups, that's not covered by minimum wage let alone les than that.

yes, and the fact that I almost died both times....it's def. NOT nothing at all, it's growing an entire human being, giving your body up to them because hell, they are going to take it anyway....oh, and labor.. let me tell you NOT fun, not fun at all.

oh for fuck sake! what planet are you on? are you even human?

What do you mean? It would be an entirely optional choice. Instead of simply receiving choice "A" as a punishment, a woman criminal now receives both choice "A" and choice "B." Having multiple choices, provided one is the same, is always better than having only one choice. As such, it is more humane than forcing women to go to prison. What planet are you on?

yes, and the fact that I almost died both times....it's def. NOT nothing at all, it's growing an entire human being, giving your body up to them because hell, they are going to take it anyway....oh, and labor.. let me tell you NOT fun, not fun at all.

the emotional trauma of a miscarriage is not worth 10 grand either, even if it is 'only' the state's baby.

What do you mean? It would be an entirely optional choice. Instead of simply receiving choice "A" as a punishment, a woman criminal now receives both choice "A" and choice "B." Having multiple choices, provided one is the same, is always better than having only one choice. As such, it is more humane than forcing women to go to prison. What planet are you on?

carry a human child to term as a form of punishment. Let the state have control of your reproductive capacity.

I have to agree, you have absolutely no practical experience in the real world. And that's not an fallacy, because any emotionally well developed human being who actually DID have that experience would see the immediate glaring humanitarian problem this would create.

your theory fails on humanity more than anything else. the 'logic' of it has already been refuted.

What's wrong with the humanity of it? It is equally humane as the raising of foster children by the state -- this will be exactly the same. They'll stand an equal chance to be adopted, but they will have a much greater chance at success once they leave the foster home because they will be much more talented. They will easily find a job and be productive. How is this any worse than raising a foster child?

What do you mean? It would be an entirely optional choice. Instead of simply receiving choice "A" as a punishment, a woman criminal now receives both choice "A" and choice "B." Having multiple choices, provided one is the same, is always better than having only one choice. As such, it is more humane than forcing women to go to prison. What planet are you on?

You forgot the part where we sterilize the patriotic surrogates after ... what? Do you think four? Five? They're just carriers, after all. They could get maybe a little stipend afterwards, something to keep them in chips and beer, you know.

carry a human child to term as a form of punishment. Let the state have control of your reproductive capacity.

It is not a necessary form of punishment. It is an optional form of punishment. If a woman prefers it to serving a longer sentence, then so be it. I would certainly not wish to force anyone to be pregnant. Who are you to say what women should or should not do? It should be their choice, and no one else's.

the emotional trauma of a miscarriage is not worth 10 grand either, even if it is 'only' the state's baby.

very very true. I also think it will screw the kids up more than he realizes by not having them raised by a family.

You forgot the part where we sterilize the patriotic surrogates after ... what?

I never proposed sterilizing anyone against his/her will (except, perhaps, in the case of those with grevious genetic disorders). In either case, that is tangetial to the topic at hand.

A sense of family is extraneous. All that is required is efficiency and productivity in the work-force. They will also have a family, assuming they are adopted. Otherwise, they will be raised as foster children, in the same way numerous other children are. As long as they're intelligent, who cares if they know who Daddy is or not?
"Already we are breaking down the habits of thought which have survived from before the Revolution. We have cut the links between child and parent, and between man and man, and between man and woman. No one dares trust a wife or a child or a friend any longer. But in the future there will be no wives and no friends. Children will be taken from their mothers at birth, as one takes eggs from a hen. The sex instinct will be eradicated. Procreation will be an annual formality like the renewal of a ration card."

-- 1984

What's wrong with the humanity of it? It is equally humane as the raising of foster children by the state -- this will be exactly the same. They'll stand an equal chance to be adopted, but they will have a much greater chance at success once they leave the foster home because they will be much more talented. They will easily find a job and be productive. How is this any worse than raising a foster child?

what government in recent times removed children from their families as policy?

Pol Pots Cambodia. And that wasnt the economic powerhouse really, was it.

You are a baboon with a keyboard if you think medically, morally and economically this makes sense. I have no problem throwing bizarre crap on here to engage discussion, but you are agressive when people pick holes in or mock your totalitarian plan

let me explain this very simply, and very directly.

You are talking about selectively breeding human beings based on genetic characteristics and handing their development over to the state, for whatever purposes the state may decide to have with ham.

If you can't see the HUUUUGE ethical and moral problems this creates, then I have no further need for this conversation, and I pity you.

I think your idea is bad. Since I have a higher IQ than you, you must believe me, since, by your standards, I am smarter and better than you.

What do you mean? It would be an entirely optional choice. Instead of simply receiving choice "A" as a punishment, a woman criminal now receives both choice "A" and choice "B." Having multiple choices, provided one is the same, is always better than having only one choice. As such, it is more humane than forcing women to go to prison. What planet are you on?

so they choose between going to prison, or going to prison and carrying a baby? that's not a choice. anyway if you did that you'd have to give a choice to men as well. what'll it be? a prison sentence and prostate cancer? gall stones that they have to pee out? getting their balls crushed every day?

Glaring inhumanities aside, you would also need to ensure that the children would be raised in such a way that: their potential intelligence is actualised: and that they have the complementary skills and discipline to use that intelligence in the real world (I suggest you do not take care of this part); and that they actually want to help the nation. I suggest using wildly successful people to teach them, when they aren't busy being wildly successful...
After that, you have to find a method to control these people before they take over, and implement a liberal government.

It is, after all, the smartest form of government.

Hitler Youth, anyone?

http://www.orlyowl.com/upload/files/hitlerowl.JPG

I never proposed sterilizing anyone against his/her will (except, perhaps, in the case of those with grevious genetic disorders). In either case, that is tangetial to the topic at hand.

I know, I said you forgot that part. I was just trying to be helpful.

If you can't see the HUUUUGE ethical and moral problems this creates, then I have no further need for this conversation, and I pity you.

Theres also the problem of finding licensed doctors to perform these forced inceminations(sp?), as it violates every medical ethics code in existence, including the hippocratic oath. Unless he can go to Brazil and look up old Dr. Mengele.....

Theres also the problem of finding a licensed doctor to perform these forced inceminations(sp?), as it violates every medical ethics code in existence, including the hippocratic oath. Unless he can go to Brazil and look up old Dr. Mengele.....

Oh, I'm sure there are some doctors who'd do it, for a fee. And it's patriotic work. Suppose we give the doctor a tax break, a certain amount off for each insemination he or she performs?

You are talking about selectively breeding human beings based on genetic characteristics and handing their development over to the state, for whatever purposes the state may decide to have with ham.

What about ham? I find it quite tasty, but you have to make sure it's fresh. It does not taste as good if dry.

If you can't see the HUUUUGE ethical and moral problems this creates, then I have no further need for this conversation, and I pity you.

You're grasping at straws here. Your argument is a logical fallacy (argumentum ad misericordiam), too. I pity you if you cannot even try to string together a coherent argument to refute my claims.

Hitler Youth, anyone?
It's a very bizarre idea, but it's not like he's saying people of lesser intelligence should be killed or prevented from breeding.

Theres also the problem of finding a licensed doctor to perform these forced inceminations(sp?), as it violates every medical ethics code in existence, including the hippocratic oath. Unless he can go to Brazil and look up old Dr. Mengele.....

These procedures are performed daily within the US. It's called in vitro fertilization, if I am not mistaken. It does not violate any of the oaths a doctor is required to take. Stop invoking Godwin's Law so incessantly -- it displays a lack of imagination.

Theres also the problem of finding licensed doctors to perform these forced inceminations(sp?), as it violates every medical ethics code in existence, including the hippocratic oath. Unless he can go to Brazil and look up old Dr. Mengele.....

Dr. Mengele's roasting in a much lower place right now. :D

I love how MTAE has no problem banning gay marriage in order to preserve the sanctity of marriage and the stability of the family unit, then turns around twice and upends the whole concept of "family" in favor of state-sponsored eugenic "breeding".

Blecch.

It's a very bizarre idea, but it's not like he's saying people of lesser intelligence should be killed or prevented from breeding.

You're right, MTAE doesn't actually say that. It's implied, though, because for the "intelligent" people to overcome the lead that the "unintelligent" have in breeding, they'd have to have some sort of "affirmative action" going on.

I love how MTAE has no problem banning gay marriage

When did I say I had a problem with gay marriage? I don't recall any such comment. I personally find gay marriage to be legally justified, although objectively wrong. I certainly don't oppose it on the grounds of family dynamics -- people don't magically become gay if they have two homosexual parents.

To further encourage women into this scheme, we could also cut off welfare for women who are capable of getting pregnant but refuse their patriotic duty.

Ah. Good to know that you're actually a troll, as I refuse to believe that anyone could seriously make a statement like this. That makes me feel better about some of the outlandish things you've said on these forums in the past.

Okay...MTAE, you are right, your point is entirely and perfectly logical. That is not the point people are trying to make. Have you read, or even seen, I, Robot? Or 1984? Humans are not just creatures of logic, and taking logic to its extreme points, as you have, can have...unwanted, even horrifying consequences.

When did I say I had a problem with gay marriage? I don't recall any such comment. I personally find gay marriage to be legally justified, although objectively wrong. I certainly don't oppose it on the grounds of family dynamics -- people don't magically become gay if they have two homosexual parents.
Huh... I could've sworn you said that. Well, I guess with all the other crap you've been spewing, homophobia seems like it would fit you like a glove.

It's implied, though, because for the "intelligent" people to overcome the lead that the "unintelligent" have in breeding, they'd have to have some sort of "affirmative action" going on.

No shit! Of course there's going to be some "affirmative action" taking place. Did you even read my first post? There would be monetary incentives to persuade people to raise intelligent children instead of natural babies. Everything would be based entirely by choice, except that tax payers would have to subsidize the programme (of course, the war in Iraq costs much more than my proposal, so that shouldn't be that big of a problem).

These procedures are performed daily within the US. It's called in vitro fertilization, if I am not mistaken. It does not violate any of the oaths a doctor is required to take. Stop invoking Godwin's Law so incessantly -- it displays a lack of imagination.

you missed the point entirely.

These procedures are performed daily within the US. It's called in vitro fertilization, if I am not mistaken. It does not violate any of the oaths a doctor is required to take. Stop invoking Godwin's Law so incessantly -- it displays a lack of imagination.

Uh, yea. Because its given with the patient's consent. The operative word here is Forced fertalization. Which goes against all ethical laws within the medical establishment.

IQ is not fucking genetic.

Ah. Good to know that you're actually a troll, as I refuse to believe that anyone could seriously make a statement like this. That makes me feel better about some of the outlandish things you've said on these forums in the past.

You're right -- that was slightly trollish of me. I wish to retract that statement, as it would be tantamount to coercing women into being impregnated. However, I would not necessarily be adverse to cutting welfare across the board. That's another issue, however.

No shit! Of course there's going to be some "affirmative action" taking place. Did you even read my first post? There would be monetary incentives to persuade people to raise intelligent children instead of natural babies. Everything would be based entirely by choice, except that tax payers would have to subsidize the programme (of course, the war in Iraq costs much more than my proposal, so that shouldn't be that big of a problem).
Have you ever seen the movie Gattaca (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gattaca)? I'd guess you haven't, but it is a great example of everything wrong with your little "policy".

Uh, yea. Because its given with the patient's consent. The operative word here is Forced fertalization. Which goes against all ethical laws within the medical establishment.

I stated that these procedures would be entirely consensual, ergo the monetary rewads for fulfilling your patriotic duty. If we could just force people to do this, we wouldn't have to pay them money, now would we? I am all for individual freedoms, however, and I could not, in good faith, advocate coercing people into becoming pregnant. The choice must be made by them and only by them.

Have you ever seen the movie Gattaca (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gattaca)? I'd guess you haven't, but it is a great example of everything wrong with your little "policy".

It spawns bad movies with plot holes you could stick Ayers Rock through?

IQ is not fucking genetic.

On the contrary. The American Psychological Association's 1995 task force on "Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns" concluded that within the white population the heritability of IQ is "around .75." You would do well to read the Wikipedia article on IQ while you're at it.

I stated that these procedures would be entirely consensual, ergo the monetary rewads for fulfilling your patriotic duty. If we could just force people to do this, we wouldn't have to pay them money, now would we? I am all for individual freedoms, however, and I could not, in good faith, advocate coercing people into becoming pregnant. The choice must be made by them and only by them.

So as long as the women is given the choice to starve to death rather than undergo this, its perfectly ethical?

I. Am. Speechless.

So as long as the women is given the choice to starve to death rather than undergo this, its perfectly ethical?

I. Am. Speechless.

They could always get a job -- you know, work for a living. If they are unable to find one, but are trying to do so, they may rely on society's support as they currently do. Nothing would change, but they would be given more of a chance to succeed.

Problem here:
IQ is not (entirely) genetic.
It depends on the enviroment the child was raised in when it was growing up.
If it's raised by the state, it's not going to be smart enough to justify this.
Not to mention it'll be absolutely miserable.

Which I can use as an argument(in logical format):
It is wrong to cause other people emotional trauma for personal gain.
Being raised by the state is traumatic.
Therefore, it is wrong to force other people to be raised by the state.
MTAE's proposal nessisarily forces people to be raised by the state.
Therefore, MTAE's proposal is wrong.
QED.

They could always get a job -- you know, work for a living. If they are unable to find one, but are trying to do so, they may rely on society's support as they currently do. Nothing would change, but they would be given more of a chance to succeed.

and if they're unable to get a job?

Then they sell their wombs to survive, which is coercion.

Problem here:

Thank you for being the first person to write a logical response to my post.

It is wrong to cause other people emotional trauma for personal gain.

However, personal gain is not reflected in my proposal. The plan would benefit the US economy, which would then profit society as a whole. So one person is being subjected to these conditions for a communal gain, not a personal one.

Being raised by the state is traumatic.

Do you have any proof to back this up? Also, you fail to take into account what happens after they leave the state institution. They will have an increaed quality of life due to their high-paying job, which smooths out all prior inconveniences. They'll spend 15 years in a foster home and another 50 years enjoying life to its fullest potential. That seems like more than a fair trade.

Therefore, it is wrong to force other people to be raised by the state.

I am not forcing anyone to be raised by the state. Any capable family will do. In the absence of an acceptable family, however, the state must assume that role. Would you consider it wrong for parents to put their children up for adoption?

Then they sell their wombs to survive, which is coercion.

What are you talking about? If they must sell their wombs to survive, that means that they would be dead under the previous system. In that case, this is an improvement.

No shit! Of course there's going to be some "affirmative action" taking place. Did you even read my first post? There would be monetary incentives to persuade people to raise intelligent children instead of natural babies. Everything would be based entirely by choice, except that tax payers would have to subsidize the programme (of course, the war in Iraq costs much more than my proposal, so that shouldn't be that big of a problem).
What I meant was, you'll need something to get the ball rolling. Frankly, given the imposition of donating one's eggs (it's not like guys, where you just "rub one out," as the saying goes, it's unpleasant and painful), five hundred bucks isn't going to make it, not for the women, anyway. So you'll need to offer considerably more money to the women, and my point about "affirmative action" is that you'll need some way to get the "unintelligent" (IQ less than 125) to stop breeding.

You're right -- that was slightly trollish of me. I wish to retract that statement, as it would be tantamount to coercing women into being impregnated. However, I would not necessarily be adverse to cutting welfare across the board. That's another issue, however.
That would be the Millionaire thread, right?

Let me give you an example here.

let us say I am a father of two, and a very successful individual who donates a great deal to charity.

You are single, unmarried, who makes little money and pays little in taxes, and gives nothing to charity.

I have a disease which will kill me unless I get an organ transplant. Your organ is suitable as a transplant. The procedure however would kill you.

By all logical measure society WOULD be better with me than with you. It is LOGICAL to let me live and you die.

Shall I kill you? And I don't mean some random person, I mean YOU. Should YOU die if only one of us could live, and I would benefit society more? would YOU willingly kill yourself so someone who would "do more to society" can live?

By your logic you MUST SAY YES, you must be willing to die, because it would be the logical best thing for the society for you to die and let someone "better" live.

By your logic you MUST SAY YES, you must be willing to die, because it would be the logical best thing for the society for you to die and let someone "better" live.

No, it would be completely irrational to willingly die unless there are harsh consequences for continuing to live. In this case there are none -- why should you care what's best for society if you're not going to be around to see it? Also, the state cannot execute people to protect the more necessary members of society, as that power could be easily abused. However, given your example, it would be the objectively rational course of action to take from the standpoint of society in general.

So you'll need to offer considerably more money to the women, and my point about "affirmative action" is that you'll need some way to get the "unintelligent" (IQ less than 125) to stop breeding.

Not necessarily. All that is required is to get the intelligent to breed more -- eventually, the un-intelligent will decline and become a minority that is dwarfed by the smart. And, as I said before, all those price issues will be settled by the market -- supply and demand, in particular.

No...However, given your example, it would be the objectively rational course of action to take from the standpoint of society in general.

by your own admission it would be the best thing for society, however you are unwilling to do so. Now you are as illogical as you accuse us of being.

OK, so now that you have refused to do something that would be "for the good of the state" and concede that it would be, in the best interests of the state, the most logical thing to do, you, being a supposedly rational human being, concede that sometimes we reject doing things "in the best interest of the state" for our own reasons.

And allowing the state to enter into controlled, coordinated breeding programs is certainly well beyond where I personally draw the line. So stop asking for a "logical reason" when you yourself have admitted you would not be willing to do something even though it would be the logical best course "for the good of the state".

by your own admission it would be the best thing for society, however you are unwilling to do so. Now you are as illogical as you accuse us of being.

Your example, I am sorry to say, is quite flawed. The interests of the individual and the state rarely coincide entirely -- as such, the logical path for an individual to take is not the logical course of action for a state to take. A rational human being must attempt to maxmize the enjoyment he/she derives from life, while a state must maxmize its quality of life for its people. These two goals are sometimes mutually exclusive, as pointed out by you in your example.

So stop asking for a "logical reason" when you yourself have admitted you would not be willing to do something even though it would be the logical best course "for the good of the state".

I am not forcing people to do anything; I am giving them the option of doing something. The analogy is flawed. Please try giving a logical reason why this "crosses the line" as you put it. Also, note that a logical reason cannot be in the form of a question.

my reason is simple. To allow the state to selectively breed human beings for the purpose of societal utilitarian functions, to create living people whose only purpose was to be created by the state to serve the state would be so obscenely barbaric as to strip from us any vestage of humanity and reduce us to savages.

Not all arguments can be won with utilitarian reasoning. Sometimes things are just wrong. Sometimes things are just immoral. Sometimes things are just fundamentally disgusting and an anathema to civilized society. This is one of them.

And if you can not understand that, once again, I pity you, for not having a shred of basic human decency.

I was pondering ways to ease the burden of outsourcing, to create a more competitive work-force, to increase the standard of education, and to create a more informed populace. I believe that all these problems could be rectified through a simple solution.

We should encourage the most intelligent people to breed via monetary incentives -- for example, we'll pay someone with an IQ of 125-135 $500 dollars to give either sperm or ova to the state. There may be a similar pay scale for the most athletic and such. We then need a subject in which to implant the resultant fetus. We'll pay each woman who consents to having the fetus implanted inside her, say, $10,000 dollars (that's quite close to minimum wage for doing nothing at all). After the woman gives birth, the baby will be raised by the state according to the most modern baby-care techniques to maximize the capacity of the baby, after which point he/she will be given to a loving family. It's like evolution, only we are the driving force behind it, implementing our own version of natural selection. In the long run, we'll come an ultra-intelligent, hyper-competitive economy and outstrip any other country in the world. It seems to be a win-win scenario.

On one hand, this sounds like a brilliant idea! Praise be to Dear Leader for our glorious communist revolution!

Because that's what this is, you know. At its core, it's a form of communism. It ignores human rights, human emotions, the freedom people deserve, and all that jazz. Tell me: would you rather live in the economy we have now and be a happy person able to do what they wished--within the bounds of a fair and just legal system--or live in this world you would have us create and have no freedom whatsoever?

Also: Brave New World was turned into a crap movie. Only good thing about it was Leonard Nimoy.

I have a feeling that these smart people won't stimulate the economy much.
Especially if they revolt, like they almost certainly will.

I have a feeling that these smart people won't stimulate the economy much.
Especially if they revolt, like they almost certainly will.

Good point. And what you're probably breeding are liberals, anyway. And liberals are ebil.

Good point. And what you're probably breeding are liberals, anyway. And liberals are ebil.

They smell bad as well.

They smell bad as well.

Especially if you leave them out in the sun for any length of time. Eeeewww.

I am not forcing people to do anything; I am giving them the option of doing something. The analogy is flawed. Please try giving a logical reason why this "crosses the line" as you put it. Also, note that a logical reason cannot be in the form of a question.

Let's say I break into your house one night and put a gun to your face. I give you two options. Either I kill you or I take all your money. Is that a free choice?

Especially if you leave them out in the sun for any length of time. Eeeewww.
You ever changed a mentally gifted baby's diaper?

It's nearly unpossible to breathe.

Let's say I break into your house one night and put a gun to your face. I give you two options. Either I kill you or I take all your money. Is that a free choice?

Yes.

Yes.

Yeah, I don't think you understand what "free choice" means.

Let's say I break into your house one night and put a gun to your face. I give you two options. Either I kill you or I take all your money. Is that a free choice?

To elaborate:

It's not a free choice because there's no good choice.
Or for that matter, any choice between the theif shooting you and the theif taking your money.
EDIT: Besides, not between. Stupid me.

I've got a much more effective and less nightmarishly unethical method for raising the population's intelligence: Increase Education.

Oh look! I did it!

I was pondering ways to ease the burden of outsourcing, to create a more competitive work-force, to increase the standard of education, and to create a more informed populace. I believe that all these problems could be rectified through a simple solution.

We should encourage the most intelligent people to breed via monetary incentives -- for example, we'll pay someone with an IQ of 125-135 $500 dollars to give either sperm or ova to the state. There may be a similar pay scale for the most athletic and such. We then need a subject in which to implant the resultant fetus. We'll pay each woman who consents to having the fetus implanted inside her, say, $10,000 dollars (that's quite close to minimum wage for doing nothing at all). After the woman gives birth, the baby will be raised by the state according to the most modern baby-care techniques to maximize the capacity of the baby, after which point he/she will be given to a loving family. It's like evolution, only we are the driving force behind it, implementing our own version of natural selection. In the long run, we'll come an ultra-intelligent, hyper-competitive economy and outstrip any other country in the world. It seems to be a win-win scenario.

Dude, there are several problems with this. First off, intelligence is not just genetics(it can HELP, but there are many other factors), and the same goes for atheleticism.

Also, this is suggesting basically engineering children. Screw diversity and such, let's make carbon babies.

This seem rather Aryan to me.

Well well well. Eugenics programs. I guess I shouldn't be surprised. MeansToAnEnd would let you all fuck his mother if he thought it would get him attention.

It's a very bizarre idea, but it's not like he's saying people of lesser intelligence should be killed or prevented from breeding.

The point he was trying to get across is that Hitler promoted a similar program of engineered breeding, giving compensation to those deemed having higher qualities to breed with others of so called higher qualities to produce stronger, more apt and frankly more Aryan children, and gave incentive to do so.

This idea really is not unlike what Hitler proposed.

Let's say I break into your house one night and put a gun to your face. I give you two options. Either I kill you or I take all your money. Is that a free choice?

If that's true, that means the only choice somebody has now, under our current system, it having all his/her possessions stolent. I am simply giving people more freedom and more choice -- I am not taking anything away.

This idea really is not unlike what Hitler proposed.

However, Hitler employed a false and outright idiotic methodology. He thought that the Aryan people were superior without citing a shred of proof to support that preposterous assertion. As such, his ideas were absurd. However, intelligent people have an immediately recognizable characteristic -- their brain-power. This is a trait which we should seek to improve, for humanity as a whole, through pseudo-evolutionary means. Blue eyes do not reflect any beneficial genetic feature, but being smart does.

However, Hitler employed a false and outright idiotic methodology. He thought that the Aryan people were superior without citing a shred of proof to support that preposterous assertion.

Of course, if there was "proof" you accepted, you'd have no problems with Hitler's eugenics programs.

Hitler apologetics and eugenics advocation - gosh MeansToAnEnd, it's almost like you're just trying to piss people off.

However, intelligent people have an immediately recognizable characteristic -- their brain-power. This is a trait which we should seek to improve, for humanity as a whole, through pseudo-evolutionary means.

Good point. Maybe you should remove yourself from the gene pool. You know, to benefit humanity.

MeansToAnEnd, it's almost like you're just trying to piss people off.

Maybe you should remove yourself from the gene pool. You know, to benefit humanity.

Oh, the irony! That sweet, bitter, cruel, irony! You accuse me of "trying to piss people off" while you insult me and (subtly) call me stupid? I have not resorted to an ad hominem argument in this thread; you have. Please stop trolling.

If that's true, that means the only choice somebody has now, under our current system, it having all his/her possessions stolent. I am simply giving people more freedom and more choice -- I am not taking anything away.

You're forcing women to give up their lives. Or are women not people in your narrow mind?

You're forcing women to give up their lives. Or are women not people in your narrow mind?

What are you talking about? When did I ever "force" women to do anything, least of all give up their lives? They currently have a set number of choices. I am simply adding the choice to have babies for money. I am not forcing anybody to do anything. Don't misrepresent my views.

Ya know, this plan of the OP's sounds like money in the bank to me...

I've got a much more effective and less nightmarishly unethical method for raising the population's intelligence: Increase Education.

Oh look! I did it!

Z0MG! 73H 3811 445C157! :rolleyes:

best. solution. to. stupidity. in. children.

However, Hitler employed a false and outright idiotic methodology. He thought that the Aryan people were superior without citing a shred of proof to support that preposterous assertion. As such, his ideas were absurd. However, intelligent people have an immediately recognizable characteristic -- their brain-power. This is a trait which we should seek to improve, for humanity as a whole, through pseudo-evolutionary means. Blue eyes do not reflect any beneficial genetic feature, but being smart does.

Are you not the person who earlier proposed that suffrage only be granted to the top % of those that could pass an IQ test built to weed out political views that were not consistent with your own?

IQ is no determinant for good leadership or success. It can certainly help to be sure, but your program is amlost pure and simply eugenics. Many people have already brought this up however, so I wont go further into it.

I will ask you when the last time you truly examined your political ambitions was. Do you truly think that there is so clear a line between "weak and strong" or "right or wrong" that you yourself could be trusted to decide the difference? What happens if this experiment were implemented and then backfired in a Asimovic nature?

When did I say I had a problem with gay marriage? I don't recall any such comment. I personally find gay marriage to be legally justified, although objectively wrong. I certainly don't oppose it on the grounds of family dynamics -- people don't magically become gay if they have two homosexual parents.
Smartest thing I've heard out of your keyboard yet.

Hitler Youth, anyone?No, the Nazis called their breeding program "Lebensborn".

The pricing would be flexible and would represent the economics behind supply and demand. If the price necessary is $25,000, then tax-payers will have to subsidize such women. To further encourage women into this scheme, we could also cut off welfare for women who are capable of getting pregnant but refuse their patriotic duty.

My God...

First it was 1984.
Then Brave New World.
Now this is Handmaid's Tale.

I study you in literature, Means. As CHARACTERS. O'Brien, the doctors from Brave New World, the top officers in Handmaid's Tale. You support everything they stand for! This is amazing, and I mean it - you are a dystopian character brought to life!

Oh, the irony! That sweet, bitter, cruel, irony! You accuse me of "trying to piss people off" while you insult me and (subtly) call me stupid? I have not resorted to an ad hominem argument in this thread; you have. Please stop trolling.

Trolling would be - for example - me creating a thread in which I expound on my Nazi-esque plan to "improve humanity" by eugenics, for the main purpose of getting people ired up so they respond a lot while I sat back and laughed and smirked like a little bitch about how clever I was for skating the forum rules.

That is what you are doing.

In fact, what I am doing is *exactly* what you want people to do. So why complain? Sit back and enjoy it. I imagine you don't get to enjoy many other things in life, so really I'm being quite charitable.

It is not a necessary form of punishment. It is an optional form of punishment. If a woman prefers it to serving a longer sentence, then so be it. I would certainly not wish to force anyone to be pregnant. Who are you to say what women should or should not do? It should be their choice, and no one else's.

Okay, and I'll assume the female prisoner's name would be what? Offred? Ofglenn? Ofmeanstoanend?

Let's see what dystopia he copycats next! Five bucks on Animal Farm!

I was pondering ways to ease the burden of outsourcing, to create a more competitive work-force, to increase the standard of education, and to create a more informed populace. I believe that all these problems could be rectified through a simple solution.

We should encourage the most intelligent people to breed via monetary incentives -- for example, we'll pay someone with an IQ of 125-135 $500 dollars to give either sperm or ova to the state. There may be a similar pay scale for the most athletic and such. We then need a subject in which to implant the resultant fetus. We'll pay each woman who consents to having the fetus implanted inside her, say, $10,000 dollars (that's quite close to minimum wage for doing nothing at all). After the woman gives birth, the baby will be raised by the state according to the most modern baby-care techniques to maximize the capacity of the baby, after which point he/she will be given to a loving family. It's like evolution, only we are the driving force behind it, implementing our own version of natural selection. In the long run, we'll come an ultra-intelligent, hyper-competitive economy and outstrip any other country in the world. It seems to be a win-win scenario.

Ah, I see. You are trolling.

But, hey, let's pretend you're serious. How about this trick? We actually apply those techniques to educating the kids we have, caring for the kids we have? Do you know how many children in America wait for adoption? Do you know how many people receive substandard educations? Why are we supposed to suddenly believe the government that can't do education right will suddenly do it right just because they design the children? All evidence is counter to such a claim.

I was pondering ways to ease the burden of outsourcing, to create a more competitive work-force, to increase the standard of education, and to create a more informed populace. I believe that all these problems could be rectified through a simple solution.

We should encourage the most intelligent people to breed via monetary incentives -- for example, we'll pay someone with an IQ of 125-135 $500 dollars to give either sperm or ova to the state. There may be a similar pay scale for the most athletic and such. We then need a subject in which to implant the resultant fetus. We'll pay each woman who consents to having the fetus implanted inside her, say, $10,000 dollars (that's quite close to minimum wage for doing nothing at all). After the woman gives birth, the baby will be raised by the state according to the most modern baby-care techniques to maximize the capacity of the baby, after which point he/she will be given to a loving family. It's like evolution, only we are the driving force behind it, implementing our own version of natural selection. In the long run, we'll come an ultra-intelligent, hyper-competitive economy and outstrip any other country in the world. It seems to be a win-win scenario.

Not gonna be popular enough to actually get passed due to the obvious Hitlerness. Better try for gene manipulation. Not only could you create Ogrish Einstiens, you could give them sweat bear claws to slash the fuck outta stuff.

Okay...MTAE, you are right, your point is entirely and perfectly logical. That is not the point people are trying to make. Have you read, or even seen, I, Robot? Or 1984? Humans are not just creatures of logic, and taking logic to its extreme points, as you have, can have...unwanted, even horrifying consequences.

Indeed, a possible definition of a dystopia is "a state in which a given ideology was taken to its extreme".

Which explains why is it that this guy jumped from Oceania to the World Government to Gilead in one day. I'm betting he'll go to the Farm now. All Means are equal, but some are more equal than others...

You're right -- that was slightly trollish of me. I wish to retract that statement, as it would be tantamount to coercing women into being impregnated. However, I would not necessarily be adverse to cutting welfare across the board. That's another issue, however.

So... we're looking at what here? Choice between Gilead and Oceania again? Forced impregnation (Let's say the word he doesn't want us to, RAPE) or engineered misery and poverty. Right.

I studied your very essence, Means. You are dystopian, and I can decipher dystopian.

Wait, wait, wait...

Means... Did you ever take an IQ test?

When did I say I had a problem with gay marriage? I don't recall any such comment. I personally find gay marriage to be legally justified, although objectively wrong. I certainly don't oppose it on the grounds of family dynamics -- people don't magically become gay if they have two homosexual parents.

To find the answer to the BOLD question, see the UNDERSCORED sentance.

If you find gay marriage to be "objectively wrong" you are saying you have a problem with gay marriage.

There is nothing as silly around here as an inconsistant troll.

If that's true, that means the only choice somebody has now, under our current system, it having all his/her possessions stolent. I am simply giving people more freedom and more choice -- I am not taking anything away.

Oh, but women already HAVE that choice - they can work as prostitutes, which is about as honorable a profession as the one you advocate, sustains them just like your idea does, and involves payment for sexual violation just like your idea does as well, only without the nuisance of the traumatic pregnancy and loss of a baby.

To find the answer to the BOLD question, see the UNDERSCORED sentance.

If you find gay marriage to be "objectively wrong" you are saying you have a problem with gay marriage.

There is nothing as silly around here as an inconsistant troll.

Yes there is - an inconsistant troll that keeps claiming that HE has skill in logics.

Yes there is - an inconsistant troll that keeps claiming that HE has skill in logics.

Yep. I stand corrected! :D

I like this idea, it would certainly create a Brave New World

(sits back and waits for someone to get it)

for most people the kind of world proposed in the book is kind of scary. i personally believe in a system like that but more mixed to the one in island.

I believe eugenics programs have a lot of potential – it is unfortunate that the idea has gotten dismissed because of its association with the Nazi party. Rather than react with moral indignation (the ‘it isn’t what the bible tells us to do’ response), why not try to look at the proposal objectively. Rather than just assert that it is wrong and should never be even thought about, why not give actual reasons why it is not a good idea (rather than just proclaiming it evil – give a logical reason).

The current birthrate favors the stupid and indolent. The poor and stupid have much higher birthrates than the intelligent and capable. While genetics are not a 100% indication of success in life, everyone must admit that a child of successful educated people has a much better chance of being an intelligent productive member of society than a child born to impoverished idiots.

In the past, incompetent people died before reproducing, or their children died so as not to pass on defective genes or child rearing techniques. These days, we protect and support people of lesser ability. These people of poor breeding produce children in far greater numbers than successful people tend to produce. Therefore, children of healthy genetics and raised in a nurturing environment (and therefore most likely to be productive members of society) are being vastly outnumbered by the children raised in unhealthy environments.

Society will then follow a downward trend as the median ability of the population declines precipitously. This decline will worsen the general environment, and lead to an ever increasing pace of decline.

The comment about having prison inmates give birth, or to pay some paltry amount to encourage people taking it as a source of income, is a horrid idea simply because the womb environment is so important to the development of a child. People so poor as to be attracted to being a baby factory to make money, or women in prison, do not have the best environment for a fetus to develop.

There are two parts to eugenics – positive eugenics (encouraging good breeding) and negative eugenics (discouraging bad breeding). Positive eugenics should be greatly supported with incentives for good parents to raise as many children as practicable. Negative eugenics however, does have a slippery slope argument against it.

Reducing the birth of unwanted children (those most likely to be a drain on society) is of importance. Thus I suggest that birth control and abortions be encouraged among the lower classes, and be mandatory for those who are incapable of taking care of themselves (if you can’t provide for yourself, how are you going to raise a child?). Women on welfare should be given mandatory birth control along the lines of Norplant – one simple 15 min procedure and it is fairly foolproof for 5 years but can be removed at any time.
Anyone with serious genetic diseases should be sterilized – if they want a child they can go to an egg or sperm donor or adopt (there is no shortage of children needing homes).

The alternative to reducing pregnancies of undesirable children, is allowing those unable to support themselves or their progeny to die. If they cannot find jobs, they should go ahead and get on with it to reduce the surplus population. ;) Somehow I think preventing pregnancies in the first place is the better choice, but that’s just me.

We should be seeking to better ourselves. The ideals of egalitarianism (which state that someone with an IQ of 60, serious health problems, and a violent criminal behavior is just as valuable to society as a Nobel laurite) are ludicrous. They are misplaced concepts of compassion based on a blatant denial of reality. There is a natural hierarchy of man, which should be acknowledged by any rational being and it is perverse to deny it.

You may call me an elitist aristocrat, but I would much rather have a capable educated populace rather than one which glorifies ignorance and stupidity.

Simply taking children who are predisposed to problems, and saying the solution is a few hours a day sitting in a classroom with other children just as messed up, then sending them home to a bad environment, is not going to help. Education alone is not a reasonable answer unless you are advocating something truly comprehensive like mandatory boarding school (in which case that isn’t much different than the suggestion that the state should take them). Without a beneficial home environment, sitting in a school for a few hours a day isn’t going to help.

The problem is changing the society in which the children are reared, and eugenics is likely the most effective way of changing that environment. Good homes will produce more children and bad homes produce few or none, thus the median level increases. How you define which is good or bad is fairly simple, just confine yourself to picking the worst and limiting only them. Abusive parents, severe psychological problems, insufficient resources to provide basic necessities – there are many indicators which could easily be used.

You have to have a license to have a dog but anyone can pop out a kid: therefore dogs are more deserving of a good home than children. That is what I find appalling.

I believe eugenics programs have a lot of potential – it is unfortunate that the idea has gotten dismissed because of its association with the Nazi party. Rather than react with moral indignation (the ‘it isn’t what the bible tells us to do’ response), why not try to look at the proposal objectively. Rather than just assert that it is wrong and should never be even thought about, why not give actual reasons why it is not a good idea (rather than just proclaiming it evil – give a logical reason).

The current birthrate favors the stupid and indolent. The poor and stupid have much higher birthrates than the intelligent and capable. While genetics are not a 100% indication of success in life, everyone must admit that a child of successful educated people has a much better chance of being an intelligent productive member of society than a child born to impoverished idiots.

In the past, incompetent people died before reproducing, or their children died so as not to pass on defective genes or child rearing techniques. These days, we protect and support people of lesser ability. These people of poor breeding produce children in far greater numbers than successful people tend to produce. Therefore, children of healthy genetics and raised in a nurturing environment (and therefore most likely to be productive members of society) are being vastly outnumbered by the children raised in unhealthy environments.

Society will then follow a downward trend as the median ability of the population declines precipitously. This decline will worsen the general environment, and lead to an ever increasing pace of decline.

The comment about having prison inmates give birth, or to pay some paltry amount to encourage people taking it as a source of income, is a horrid idea simply because the womb environment is so important to the development of a child. People so poor as to be attracted to being a baby factory to make money, or women in prison, do not have the best environment for a fetus to develop.

There are two parts to eugenics – positive eugenics (encouraging good breeding) and negative eugenics (discouraging bad breeding). Positive eugenics should be greatly supported with incentives for good parents to raise as many children as practicable. Negative eugenics however, does have a slippery slope argument against it.

Reducing the birth of unwanted children (those most likely to be a drain on society) is of importance. Thus I suggest that birth control and abortions be encouraged among the lower classes, and be mandatory for those who are incapable of taking care of themselves (if you can’t provide for yourself, how are you going to raise a child?). Women on welfare should be given mandatory birth control along the lines of Norplant – one simple 15 min procedure and it is fairly foolproof for 5 years but can be removed at any time.
Anyone with serious genetic diseases should be sterilized – if they want a child they can go to an egg or sperm donor or adopt (there is no shortage of children needing homes).

The alternative to reducing pregnancies of undesirable children, is allowing those unable to support themselves or their progeny to die. If they cannot find jobs, they should go ahead and get on with it to reduce the surplus population. ;) Somehow I think preventing pregnancies in the first place is the better choice, but that’s just me.

We should be seeking to better ourselves. The ideals of egalitarianism (which state that someone with an IQ of 60, serious health problems, and a violent criminal behavior is just as valuable to society as a Nobel laurite) are ludicrous. They are misplaced concepts of compassion based on a blatant denial of reality. There is a natural hierarchy of man, which should be acknowledged by any rational being and it is perverse to deny it.

You may call me an elitist aristocrat, but I would much rather have a capable educated populace rather than one which glorifies ignorance and stupidity.

Simply taking children who are predisposed to problems, and saying the solution is a few hours a day sitting in a classroom with other children just as messed up, then sending them home to a bad environment, is not going to help. Education alone is not a reasonable answer unless you are advocating something truly comprehensive like mandatory boarding school (in which case that isn’t much different than the suggestion that the state should take them). Without a beneficial home environment, sitting in a school for a few hours a day isn’t going to help.

The problem is changing the society in which the children are reared, and eugenics is likely the most effective way of changing that environment. Good homes will produce more children and bad homes produce few or none, thus the median level increases. How you define which is good or bad is fairly simple, just confine yourself to picking the worst and limiting only them. Abusive parents, severe psychological problems, insufficient resources to provide basic necessities – there are many indicators which could easily be used.

You have to have a license to have a dog but anyone can pop out a kid: therefore dogs are more deserving of a good home than children. That is what I find appalling.

This entire argument rests on unproven assumptions. For example, the fact that children of more successful parents are often more successful may not be a product of anything relating to genetics. Successful educated people have more resources to levy in the raising of a child. What evidence do you have that all things being equal that these children would be more successful? There isn't any.

You mention environment, but eugenics isn't about environment. It's about genetics. That is the point of the selective breeding.

If you were truly trying to analyze this logically we would want to create an environment where people are rewarded for healthy genetics, in which case many of your successful, educated people would be screwed.

I also find it a bit sad that your world view is so limited that you actually think that people are poor or in prison because they are stupid. That doesn't hold up to reality.

This entire argument rests on unproven assumptions. For example, the fact that children of more successful parents are often more successful may not be a product of anything relating to genetics. Successful educated people have more resources to levy in the raising of a child. What evidence do you have that all things being equal that these children would be more successful? There isn't any.

I never stated that success is entirely determined by genetics. My statements were in support of successful people having children – not people with specific genetic traits (though people who are successful possess desirable traits else they would not be successful). While a significant portion of what makes someone successful is genetics, I do not think it is even the most important determining factor. The point is that successful people are far more likely to raise successful children – this stems from favorable genetics, but more significantly by how they are raised (thus why these successful families should be encouraged to adopt as well).

Are you suggesting that a child raised as one of ten children by an illiterate single mother in an impoverished crime-ridden neighborhood has an equal likelihood of being a successful productive member of society with a child raised by an affluent well educated family in a wealthy neighborhood?

You mention environment, but eugenics isn't about environment. It's about genetics. That is the point of the selective breeding. If you were truly trying to analyze this logically we would want to create an environment where people are rewarded for healthy genetics, in which case many of your successful, educated people would be screwed.
Yes, selective breeding – and my selection criteria for good genetic stock is someone who is successful (makes a whole lot more sense than eye color). If you have achieved economic stability and a reasonable level of education, there must be something right in your makeup and are likely to produce successful progeny.

I also find it a bit sad that your world view is so limited that you actually think that people are poor or in prison because they are stupid. That doesn't hold up to reality.
I made no such assertion. There are a lot of poor people who I consider very intelligent, likewise intelligent people who have been to prison. I simply believe that intelligence is not, by itself, the only factor in raising a child. Poverty means they lack the resources to properly raise a child, and prison means they have been judged by society to be undesirable in some manner. While I do not think that temporary financial difficulties, nor a short stint in prison, should completely exclude someone from being able to have a child, it does indicate that they have certain characteristics which should be evaluated before being allowed to pass them on to another generation.

Leibenz born what?

Augustus tried to get the Roman aristocrats to have more kids, offered tax incentives to the "fathers of three children" (it became a reward in years afterward, it could be bestowed on you by a grateful emperor). The law was the lex Papia Poppaea, named after the senators who introduced it. It was quickly pointed out that neither of the sponsors were married or had children. :p

I was pondering ways to ease the burden of outsourcing, to create a more competitive work-force, to increase the standard of education, and to create a more informed populace. I believe that all these problems could be rectified through a simple solution.

We should encourage the most intelligent people to breed via monetary incentives -- for example, we'll pay someone with an IQ of 125-135 $500 dollars to give either sperm or ova to the state. There may be a similar pay scale for the most athletic and such. We then need a subject in which to implant the resultant fetus. We'll pay each woman who consents to having the fetus implanted inside her, say, $10,000 dollars (that's quite close to minimum wage for doing nothing at all). After the woman gives birth, the baby will be raised by the state according to the most modern baby-care techniques to maximize the capacity of the baby, after which point he/she will be given to a loving family. It's like evolution, only we are the driving force behind it, implementing our own version of natural selection. In the long run, we'll come an ultra-intelligent, hyper-competitive economy and outstrip any other country in the world. It seems to be a win-win scenario.

give me 500$ to jack off?, sure you facsist piece of Amphibian shit! AAARRRRGH!

I never stated that success is entirely determined by genetics. My statements were in support of successful people having children – not people with specific genetic traits (though people who are successful possess desirable traits else they would not be successful). While a significant portion of what makes someone successful is genetics, I do not think it is even the most important determining factor. The point is that successful people are far more likely to raise successful children – this stems from favorable genetics, but more significantly by how they are raised (thus why these successful families should be encouraged to adopt as well).

Again, you have no evidence 'this stems from favorable genetics'. As far as incentivized their raising of children, money is not a likely incentive as there are already monetary incentives. They don't work with people who don't really need the money. Not to mention that part of the issue is a problem with not having enough good schooling to go around, and thus where money would be better spent.

Amusingly, the flaw in eugenics is that hierarchy tends to exist in a capitalist country built with kinds of economical principles ours is. That hierarchy will simply adjust to the actions.

Meanwhile, if you're not talking about genetics then the behavior you're talking about will likely have no value after a generation, because there is no reason to believe that a change in our encouragement of who raises children, that we suddenly have more good education available, more good medical attention available, etc. available.


Are you suggesting that a child raised as one of ten children by an illiterate single mother in an impoverished crime-ridden neighborhood has an equal likelihood of being a successful productive member of society with a child raised by an affluent well educated family in a wealthy neighborhood?

Wow, reading comprehension is a basic skill. I said exactly the opposite. Eugenics and YOU connect that to genetics, but the fact is the cause is very much environment. You are contradicting the idea that environment is a major factor by suggesting that success is selective of good genetics.


Yes, selective breeding – and my selection criteria for good genetic stock is someone who is successful (makes a whole lot more sense than eye color). If you have achieved economic stability and a reasonable level of education, there must be something right in your makeup and are likely to produce successful progeny.

Whoops, make up your mind.

"I never stated that success is entirely determined by genetics."
"and my selection criteria for good genetic stock is someone who is successful"

Alright, so now that you're admitting that you believe genetics is the cause of this success (otherwise success would not lead us to good genetics with any reliability). Meanwhile, you pointed out the effect of environment. Seems like you don't know what the hell you're trying to argue.

You suggested I was ignoring environment, but your claims that success is evidence of good genetics completely ignores environment. So is success a product of environment in any large part? If the answer is yes, then there would clearly be more reliable ways to capture good genetics than success, since your results would be skewed significantly by environment. If the answer is no, then you completely contradicted yourself and you're going to have to prove it.
I made no such assertion. There are a lot of poor people who I consider very intelligent, likewise intelligent people who have been to prison. I simply believe that intelligence is not, by itself, the only factor in raising a child. Poverty means they lack the resources to properly raise a child, and prison means they have been judged by society to be undesirable in some manner. While I do not think that temporary financial difficulties, nor a short stint in prison, should completely exclude someone from being able to have a child, it does indicate that they have certain characteristics which should be evaluated before being allowed to pass them on to another generation.

You appear to have difficulty with memory -
"The current birthrate favors the stupid and indolent. The poor and stupid have much higher birthrates than the intelligent and capable."

And in case you're going to try to squirm and suggest you were referring to two separate groups, I'll point out that every one of your problems with current breeding refers either to people in prison or people who are poor, there is no other group. Your group that you want to encourage is always the successful. Again, there is no other group. Therefore, there is no other conclusion than you were calling those in prison and those who are poor stupid and those who are successful intelligent.

Don't squirm. It's just sad. Admit you called the poor stupid. Admit that you think genetics and success are directly linked and that your comments about the link between genetics and success severely contradicts any suggestion that environment is a factor.

Whoops, make up your mind.

"I never stated that success is entirely determined by genetics."
"and my selection criteria for good genetic stock is someone who is successful"

Alright, so now that you're admitting that you believe genetics is the cause of this success (otherwise success would not lead us to good genetics with any reliability). Meanwhile, you pointed out the effect of environment. Seems like you don't know what the hell you're trying to argue.


I don't want to speak for someone else, but you made a glaring mistake in your diatribe. You seem to be missing the essence of what he said. He (correctly, I might add) stated that success in not entirely determined by genetics, which implies that it is partially determined by genetics. The only variable in this is to what extent success is determined by genetics -- is there a correlation of 0.4 or 0.8? He then said that his selection criteria for good genetic stock are those who are successful. Are those two statements contradictory? Not at all. In fact, the statements allow for the possibility of the following statement being true: all very successful people have good genes. Now, I'm not saying that's true, but it is a possibility which would make both his statements 100% accurate. Perhaps some people can be somewhat successful despite bad genes, but it's quite unlikely -- to progress to the next level of success, they need good genes. Given this information, it is reasonable to conclude that the amount of success one has is directly proportional to the "quality" of his genes, and thus success is a good evolutionary mechanism.

I don't want to speak for someone else, but you made a glaring mistake in your diatribe. You seem to be missing the essence of what he said. He (correctly, I might add) stated that success in not entirely determined by genetics, which implies that it is partially determined by genetics. The only variable in this is to what extent success is determined by genetics -- is there a correlation of 0.4 or 0.8? He then said that his selection criteria for good genetic stock are those who are successful. Are those two statements contradictory? Not at all. In fact, the statements allow for the possibility of the following statement being true: all very successful people have good genes. Now, I'm not saying that's true, but it is a possibility which would make both his statements 100% accurate. Perhaps some people can be somewhat successful despite bad genes, but it's quite unlikely -- to progress to the next level of success, they need good genes. Given this information, it is reasonable to conclude that the amount of success one has is directly proportional to the "quality" of his genes, and thus success is a good evolutionary mechanism.

However, he suggests that success is selective for genetics. That would mean that no other factors are significant. That's how that stuff works. See if there are other significant factors then choosing successful people because they are genetically better would be flawed logic. It's fairly basic that any other significant factor would skew the results. You are arguing and he is arguing that genetics are the only significant factor or at least that good genetics is a requirement for success which is what I asked him to prove.

I never proposed sterilizing anyone against his/her will (except, perhaps, in the case of those with grevious genetic disorders). In either case, that is tangetial to the topic at hand.
So you believe people with "grievous genetic disorders" should be sterilized? (and what about people that cannot spell?)
What about people that carry the potential to pass along genetic diseases along to their children?
People like my brother and sister in law!
My nephew was born with a genetic disease.
They did not think he would live to be 5 years old.
He is now a happy healthy 7 year old after many operations and very expensive medical care.
I guess in you Brave New World/1984 fantasy world he should have been killed at birth as a drain on you utopian society?
We are going to need a good name for your new nation as it clearly will not resemble the United States of America in any way shape or form.
I suggest The Fourth Reich!
With MTAE leading the way we can have a perfect society without such unnecessary out dated concepts such as "love" and "family" clouding up our perfect logic.

You must live a very sad lonely life to be able to come up with such utterly inhumane ideas MTAE.
Or you are so friendless and bored that you feel the need to troll on NSG to get the attention your parents obviously are not giving you.

Wrong. People born to two people with high intelligence are more likely to develop mental problems such as autism. No, we should not do this.

Again, you have no evidence 'this stems from favorable genetics'.
I thank MeansToAnEnd for pointing out how you are being (perhaps deliberately) obtuse.

As far as incentivized their raising of children, money is not a likely incentive as there are already monetary incentives. They don't work with people who don't really need the money
As I mentioned in my earlier post, small monetary incentives are not effective because those strongly influenced by them are not the most desirable individuals.

Not to mention that part of the issue is a problem with not having enough good schooling to go around, and thus where money would be better spent.
Which is why we should work to ensure that there are fewer less capable students. ‘Special needs’ students take considerably more resources to educate; money which could be spent to educate a few normal students for each ‘special needs’ students that spend 10 years to learn how to tie their shoes (I used to date a special needs teacher and was appalled by how much money was spent for negligible benefit to society).

Amusingly, the flaw in eugenics is that hierarchy tends to exist in a capitalist country built with kinds of economical principles ours is. That hierarchy will simply adjust to the actions.
What do you mean it will “adjust to the actions”? You do not make a clear point here.
I am glad that you recognize that there is a hierarchy, but that is just the first step. Now you just need to understand that, despite political correctness, not everyone is equally valuable to society.

Meanwhile, if you're not talking about genetics then the behavior you're talking about will likely have no value after a generation, because there is no reason to believe that a change in our encouragement of who raises children, that we suddenly have more good education available, more good medical attention available, etc. available.
Why do you suppose there is no connection whatsoever between generations? Culture and values are passed from parent to offspring. Ways of looking at the world, methodologies for learning new things, behavioral practices, and standards of etiquette - many things are learned from one’s parents. To suppose that how one is raised does not in any way effect how one raises their own children is ludicrous.

While not politically correct to say so, socioeconomic class does carry over quite significantly throughout one’s life and to one’s children. While social mobility is possible, the values, beliefs, and traditions of one’s parents tend to carry over quite strongly from one generation to the next.

Eugenics and YOU connect that to genetics, but the fact is the cause is very much environment. You are contradicting the idea that environment is a major factor by suggesting that success is selective of good genetics.
This statement is in direct contradiction with your previous statement that changing the environment has no effect. My position is that those who are successful are likely to have good genetics, and thus encouraging successful people to breed is to encourage the passing on of good genes. Not only do I suppose that good genetics plays a significant part (never have I even hinted that it was the only determining factor), but the way in which successful people raise children will tend to raise those children to be successful.

Alright, so now that you're admitting that you believe genetics is the cause of this success (otherwise success would not lead us to good genetics with any reliability). Meanwhile, you pointed out the effect of environment. Seems like you don't know what the hell you're trying to argue. You suggested I was ignoring environment, but your claims that success is evidence of good genetics completely ignores environment.
I am wholly consistent – genetic makeup is a significant contributing factor to success. Environment is another significant contributing factor.
It is not only possible but highly probable that success is the result of more than just one variable – this should not be such a difficult concept to grasp.

So is success a product of environment in any large part? If the answer is yes, then there would clearly be more reliable ways to capture good genetics than success, since your results would be skewed significantly by environment. If the answer is no, then you completely contradicted yourself and you're going to have to prove it.
There most certainly is a more reliable way to capture good genetics than by using the socioeconomic success of an individual to rate their genetic assets. This more reliable way would be to map out an individual’s genome and determine the exact function and interaction of every bit of DNA (not to mention epigenetics). Since this is not technically feasible in the foreseeable future, I will be content with my rather crude, yet seemingly effective over millions of years, method of selecting what is considered good genetic stock by the individual’s successes. While by no means a pure test of that one particular variable, there is sufficient correlation between genetic suitability and ability to function.

You appear to have difficulty with memory -
"The current birthrate favors the stupid and indolent. The poor and stupid have much higher birthrates than the intelligent and capable."

And in case you're going to try to squirm and suggest you were referring to two separate groups, I'll point out that every one of your problems with current breeding refers either to people in prison or people who are poor, there is no other group. Your group that you want to encourage is always the successful. Again, there is no other group. Therefore, there is no other conclusion than you were calling those in prison and those who are poor stupid and those who are successful intelligent.

Are you suggesting that there is not the slightest correlation between intelligence and economic success? Do you believe that I would take the time to list every possible type of person in the world here in this post? It is long enough as it is, please don’t suggest you want every possible socioeconomic group to be named and described.

Secondly: Yes! I want to encourage the successful to breed! That is the whole point! I do not want to encourage the unsuccessful to breed, quite the opposite. I have this apparently unusual idea that we should be attempting to encourage success.

Don't squirm. It's just sad. Admit you called the poor stupid. Admit that you think genetics and success are directly linked and that your comments about the link between genetics and success severely contradicts any suggestion that environment is a factor.

The poor are statistically more significant to have lower levels of intelligence. No squirming on that one. I do not claim that all poor are stupid, nor do I claim that stupidity is the only determining factor of who should breed (we are back to that whole ‘more than one variable’ thing you have trouble with). Success and genetics are indeed correlated, much like success and being raised in a good environment are correlated. This by no means implies that one cannot be successful without the best genetic makeup or the healthiest environment, but it certainly helps.





So you believe people with "grievous genetic disorders" should be sterilized? (and what about people that cannot spell?)
When you resort to personal attacks because someone made a typo, you really diminish how seriously your arguments can be taken.

Yes, people who carry grievous genetic disorders should be prevented from passing seriously defective genetics onto another generation. We should not continue to propagate serious yet easily preventable disorders.

What about people that carry the potential to pass along genetic diseases along to their children?
People like my brother and sister in law!
My nephew was born with a genetic disease.
They did not think he would live to be 5 years old.
He is now a happy healthy 7 year old after many operations and very expensive medical care.
I guess in you Brave New World/1984 fantasy world he should have been killed at birth as a drain on you utopian society?
Not killed at birth, would never have been conceived in the first place. You admitted yourself that he required extensive and very costly medical treatment. Those resources could have significantly bettered the lives of many healthy individuals.

Why did they not adopt? There are many children in need of a home. If they were so desperate to have a child that they would willingly subject one to suffer through some genetic disease (which particular abnormality are we talking about anyway?), surely they could have adopted instead.

With MTAE leading the way we can have a perfect society without such unnecessary out dated concepts such as "love" and "family" clouding up our perfect logic.
How exactly does suggesting we encourage people of healthy genetics breed more equate to advocating the elimination of ‘love’ or ‘family’?

You must live a very sad lonely life to be able to come up with such utterly inhumane ideas MTAE. Or you are so friendless and bored that you feel the need to troll on NSG to get the attention your parents obviously are not giving you.
Once again, baseless personal attacks do not support your argument. Hurling invectives is not appropriate behavior.

Suggesting a topic of discussion, such as eugenics, is a very rational and sensible thing to do. Topics such as these should be discussed and debated. It will be a truly sad day when society has degenerated to such an extent that any opinion outside of mainstream convention is forbidden from being discussed.

Wrong. People born to two people with high intelligence are more likely to develop mental problems such as autism. No, we should not do this.

maybe autism is the next phase of evolution?

Society is justified because it enables autonomous individuals to come together & accomplish what they otherwise couldn't. Not the other way round. We humans don't exist to benefit society.

That said, I'll shoot my load anywhere you want for 500USD.

Society is justified because it enables autonomous individuals to come together & accomplish what they otherwise couldn't. Not the other way round. We humans don't exist to benefit society.

Hear hear!

I was pondering ways to ease the burden of outsourcing, to create a more competitive work-force, to increase the standard of education, and to create a more informed populace. I believe that all these problems could be rectified through a simple solution.

We should encourage the most intelligent people to breed via monetary incentives -- for example, we'll pay someone with an IQ of 125-135 $500 dollars to give either sperm or ova to the state. There may be a similar pay scale for the most athletic and such. We then need a subject in which to implant the resultant fetus. We'll pay each woman who consents to having the fetus implanted inside her, say, $10,000 dollars (that's quite close to minimum wage for doing nothing at all). After the woman gives birth, the baby will be raised by the state according to the most modern baby-care techniques to maximize the capacity of the baby, after which point he/she will be given to a loving family. It's like evolution, only we are the driving force behind it, implementing our own version of natural selection. In the long run, we'll come an ultra-intelligent, hyper-competitive economy and outstrip any other country in the world. It seems to be a win-win scenario.
Anybody who believes that IQ tests are accurate measures of actual intelligence, or of all desireable cognitive functions, is somebody who should not be trusted to oversee a breeding program.

Anybody who believes that IQ tests are accurate measures of actual intelligence, or of all desireable cognitive functions, is somebody who should not be trusted to oversee a breeding program.

true.
theres no real way to compare people exactly. only best way to judge is to pair off people with phd'd or nobel prizes.

Which is why I suggest taking people who are generally considered to be more successful in a socioeconomic sense. While just IQ or what you have in the bank or what education level you have achieved alone are not indicators of a successful person, taken together these factors help eliminate the worst problems.

You do not need to be narrowly selective – you still need a considerable number of births just to maintain populations. All you need to do is eliminate the bottom 1% or so to begin improving the population.

give me 500$ to jack off?, sure you facsist piece of Amphibian shit! AAARRRRGH!

Actually, I think his thinking was that *he* would get paid $500 to masturbate. In other words this thread is mostly a clever scheme designed to subsidize MTAE's masturbation.

I thank MeansToAnEnd for pointing out how you are being (perhaps deliberately) obtuse.

Am I? You accused me not accounting for environment and then said success is a measure of good genetics, which of course entirely discounts environment as a significant factor. You claim you aren't linking stupidity and being poor and then openly admit that you are. Perhaps you don't know what obtuse means, but it's not obtuse to openly point out that your position is inconsistent and then prove it. And, yes, it's inconsistent. You act as if I'm not accounting for multiple factors, but I'm the one pointing them out. You're the one claiming that success demonstrates 'good breeding' and thus discounting all other factors. You're the one who linked stupidity and being poor, thus discounting all other factors. You've clearly not thought your position through. Don't get upset with me simply because I called you on your complete lack of consistency.


As I mentioned in my earlier post, small monetary incentives are not effective because those strongly influenced by them are not the most desirable individuals.

Based on what? Your opinion. You claimed this was about improving the gene pool. Prove that those that are genetically desireable are not influenced by money.

Meanwhile, considering you are arguing that success is a measure of 'good breeding' then I'm going to have to call BS. Or are you actually arguing that people are successful weren't motivated by money? Donald Trump, not motivated by money at all? I was pointing out that the government couldn't likely pay THEM ENOUGH. These people, of which I am one, are out of the government's price range.



Which is why we should work to ensure that there are fewer less capable students. ‘Special needs’ students take considerably more resources to educate; money which could be spent to educate a few normal students for each ‘special needs’ students that spend 10 years to learn how to tie their shoes (I used to date a special needs teacher and was appalled by how much money was spent for negligible benefit to society).

Fewer less capable students? If someone brings me a car to fix and I can't fix it is it the fault of the car? Children according to you are affected by environment. We are responsible for the environment that many people exist in. In a country where you claim class mobility is nearly impossible we placed all minorities in a position in society that was lower than all white people just fifty years ago.

Special needs students are far more likely to get special resources if they are rich. So, now, who's being diliberately obtuse. Special needs classes are far less likely to exist in poor schools. Ask me how I know.


What do you mean it will “adjust to the actions”? You do not make a clear point here.

Yes, I do. You're just having trouble seeing past your nose. The hierarchy will always exist. There will always be people at the bottom and unless we correct the structure itself so that people at the bottom get better educations and have a better environment we will continue to condemn the same number of people to the same lack of access to education and resources.


I am glad that you recognize that there is a hierarchy, but that is just the first step. Now you just need to understand that, despite political correctness, not everyone is equally valuable to society.

The hierarchy isn't genetic. It's economic. They aren't related. Not everyone IS equally valuable to society. For example, I would argue that a person who works in an ER in south Chicago has more value to society than a guy who makes millions building golf courses. But, hey, I'm silly like that.


Why do you suppose there is no connection whatsoever between generations? Culture and values are passed from parent to offspring. Ways of looking at the world, methodologies for learning new things, behavioral practices, and standards of etiquette - many things are learned from one’s parents. To suppose that how one is raised does not in any way effect how one raises their own children is ludicrous.

This isn't about how people are raised, my young friend. You are talking about resources. Unless you can prove that poor people and rich people have different values don't make dumb claims. It only takes a couple of generations to go from a poor family to a rich one or vice versa and there are thousands of examples in our history in those few examples where class mobility avails itself. It's not their culture and values that change. It's their resources. Are you suggesting that if I take all the resources at the disposal of the Bush family including their name and familial relationships that they would likely be more successful than a poor family I handed those resources too?

And, once again, if those factors you are trying to enter are significant then it greatly decreases the odds that genetics is as directly related to success as you'd like to claim.



While not politically correct to say so, socioeconomic class does carry over quite significantly throughout one’s life and to one’s children. While social mobility is possible, the values, beliefs, and traditions of one’s parents tend to carry over quite strongly from one generation to the next.

Yes, they do. However, those values and beliefs are not directly related to one's socioeconomic class. According to YOU, genetics is the primary factor, so much so that success is proof of good genetics.

However, now we're down to the core of it, you're not just claiming that poor people are stupid and genetically inferior, but they are also deficient in culture and values. Consider yourself exposed.


This statement is in direct contradiction with your previous statement that changing the environment has no effect. My position is that those who are successful are likely to have good genetics, and thus encouraging successful people to breed is to encourage the passing on of good genes. Not only do I suppose that good genetics plays a significant part (never have I even hinted that it was the only determining factor), but the way in which successful people raise children will tend to raise those children to be successful.

I never said such a thing. Your reading comprehension sucks.

ME: "This entire argument rests on unproven assumptions. For example, the fact that children of more successful parents are often more successful may not be a product of anything relating to genetics. Successful educated people have more resources to levy in the raising of a child. What evidence do you have that all things being equal that these children would be more successful? There isn't any. "

In other words, I clearly state that success is NOT due to genetics and that if one were to take children from different environments and make their environments equal (thus the "all things being equal") that we would see similar levels of succes. Don't blame me because you're having difficult with the clear advocacy of success not being tied to genetics.




I am wholly consistent – genetic makeup is a significant contributing factor to success. Environment is another significant contributing factor.
It is not only possible but highly probable that success is the result of more than just one variable – this should not be such a difficult concept to grasp.

It isn't. However, if that is true, then success cannot be used to determine good genetics. That's pretty basic analysis. You've suggested that one can simply look at who is successful and know that they have good genetics. Obivously, this only works if success isolates for good genetics.


There most certainly is a more reliable way to capture good genetics than by using the socioeconomic success of an individual to rate their genetic assets. This more reliable way would be to map out an individual’s genome and determine the exact function and interaction of every bit of DNA (not to mention epigenetics). Since this is not technically feasible in the foreseeable future, I will be content with my rather crude, yet seemingly effective over millions of years, method of selecting what is considered good genetic stock by the individual’s successes. While by no means a pure test of that one particular variable, there is sufficient correlation between genetic suitability and ability to function.

You have no evidence that it's been effective for millions of years. The only thing that's been effective for millions of years is whether or not things have survived. And I would wager that absent trust funds and inheritence that there are more among the rich than among the poor who would not survive, particularly because the rich have access to even better medical care which would result in more defective genetics surviving, not less. Rich people can afford to support siblings that have no function in society. More defective genetics surviving, not less. Rich people can afford to produce children like the Hiltons who are successful only becuase their father is and have never contributed anything to society ever. More defective genetics, by your yardstick, not less.

You make the claim that this 'test' has worked for millions of years, but it's utterly false. You've stated that class mobility essentially doesn't exist, which of course would mean good genetics or no success is not available if your lower class. That makes your test not just crude but ridiculous.


Are you suggesting that there is not the slightest correlation between intelligence and economic success? Do you believe that I would take the time to list every possible type of person in the world here in this post? It is long enough as it is, please don’t suggest you want every possible socioeconomic group to be named and described.

Yes. And you agreed. You said that class mobility doesn't exist. If this is true then intelligence would not be a factor in success.

I don't need every socioeconomic group to named and described. I want you to admit your methodologies are counter to logic. In this country, 200 years ago black people were slaves. You claimed class mobility doesn't exist which would explain why the vast majority of the poor are minorities. Given this, rich people are generally more intelligent than black people OR perhaps there are many, many more factors some of which you've named yourself. Intelligence doesn't equal rich. Stupid doesn't equal poor. And your nonsensical oversimplification cannot change that.


Secondly: Yes! I want to encourage the successful to breed! That is the whole point! I do not want to encourage the unsuccessful to breed, quite the opposite. I have this apparently unusual idea that we should be attempting to encourage success.

Yes, but you measure success, and genetic quality with economics while simultaneously listing all of the reasons why the prospect is absurd.


The poor are statistically more significant to have lower levels of intelligence. No squirming on that one. I do not claim that all poor are stupid, nor do I claim that stupidity is the only determining factor of who should breed (we are back to that whole ‘more than one variable’ thing you have trouble with). Success and genetics are indeed correlated, much like success and being raised in a good environment are correlated. This by no means implies that one cannot be successful without the best genetic makeup or the healthiest environment, but it certainly helps.

I call BS. "stastically more significant"? Really? Are you poor, because you seem to having trouble forming a sentence? And, yes, if you're going to claim that a lack of intelligence and being poor are directly relate while demonstrating a lack of intelligence (or a lack of education, but you've tied those together as well), I'm going to point it out because it adds to the absurdity of your claims.

You don't seem to understand that if there are multiple factors some that would hinder the success of someone with good genetics then it makes your claim that success is a measure of good genetics utter bunk. If you're not a puppet trying to pretend to hold this position, then you're perhaps the worst debater I've encounter recently. You do much more for my position than you realize.

You're exposed. I've gotten you to admit that you think the poor are deficient in nearly every way while trying to claim you're not saying such a thing. You fail. I'm glad I could help.

Which is why I suggest taking people who are generally considered to be more successful in a socioeconomic sense. While just IQ or what you have in the bank or what education level you have achieved alone are not indicators of a successful person, taken together these factors help eliminate the worst problems.

You do not need to be narrowly selective – you still need a considerable number of births just to maintain populations. All you need to do is eliminate the bottom 1% or so to begin improving the population.

Again, you make assumptions that don't bear out in reality. The upper socioeconomic classes have more access to the type of care that would allow bad genetics to reach breeding age. Being rich is less genetically selective and you've admitted that success is not available to a large portion of our population who were not originally selected for being genetically inferior unless one suggests that not having white skin is a genetic inferiority.

Like I said, you fail. You've done nothing to show the 'bottom 1%' socioeconomically has any deficiency that is not equally likely to be found among the 'top 1%'.

Actually, I think his thinking was that *he* would get paid $500 to masturbate. In other words this thread is mostly a clever scheme designed to subsidize MTAE's masturbation.

Then why did he include requirements for that pay that would likely eliminate him?

Then why did he include requirements for that pay that would likely eliminate him?

Self-loathing?

Then why did he include requirements for that pay that would likely eliminate him?

Self-loathing?

This goes into the "Seemed Like A Good Idea At The Time" category.

This goes into the "Seemed Like A Good Idea At The Time" category.

Well, it's no coincidence that many people who try to make this kinds of changes to society often create a requirement for the 'good' class that they cannot meet. Hitler favored the tall, blond and blue-eyed, of which he was none. We have a person talking about eliminating the stupid and uneducated while misusing words and showing a complete lack of understand of how statistical analysis works and another person who created strict requirements for a class structure that he likely can't meet. It's not coincidence that this is so commmon.

Self-loathing is an unfortunate motivator for this kind of nonsense.

I was pondering ways to ease the burden of outsourcing, to create a more competitive work-force, to increase the standard of education, and to create a more informed populace. I believe that all these problems could be rectified through a simple solution.

We should encourage the most intelligent people to breed via monetary incentives -- for example, we'll pay someone with an IQ of 125-135 $500 dollars to give either sperm or ova to the state. There may be a similar pay scale for the most athletic and such. We then need a subject in which to implant the resultant fetus. We'll pay each woman who consents to having the fetus implanted inside her, say, $10,000 dollars (that's quite close to minimum wage for doing nothing at all). After the woman gives birth, the baby will be raised by the state according to the most modern baby-care techniques to maximize the capacity of the baby, after which point he/she will be given to a loving family. It's like evolution, only we are the driving force behind it, implementing our own version of natural selection. In the long run, we'll come an ultra-intelligent, hyper-competitive economy and outstrip any other country in the world. It seems to be a win-win scenario.

Instead of creating orphans, it'd be better to subsidize smart parents (i.e: tax breaks). They can get more tax breaks if they got good physical qualities as well (attractiveness, health, etc...)

Instead of creating orphans, it'd be better to subsidize smart parents (i.e: tax breaks). They can get more tax breaks if they got good physical qualities as well (attractiveness, health, etc...)

what a shock, you agree with this master race bollocks as well :rolleyes:

Instead of creating orphans, it'd be better to subsidize smart parents (i.e: tax breaks). They can get more tax breaks if they got good physical qualities as well (attractiveness, health, etc...)

Ny, you're in a thread about eugenics? No way. *Jocabia picks himself up off the floor* Who decides what physical qualities we wish to encourage? I say that some of the most attractive people are of mixed race. Based on my experience with women's reaction to many of the mixed race people, and these are women from all over the world, I'm going to have say we should let women decide. You okay with letting women decide who gets to be encouraged to breed and who doesn't?

Ny, you're in a thread about eugenics? No way. *Jocabia picks himself up off the floor* Who decides what physical qualities we wish to encourage? I say that some of the most attractive people are of mixed race. Based on my experience with women's reaction to many of the mixed race people, and these are women from all over the world, I'm going to have say we should let women decide. You okay with letting women decide who gets to be encouraged to breed and who doesn't?

Could it be that Ny Nordland and Means are two personalities of the same guy?

Could it be that Ny Nordland and Means are two personalities of the same guy?

Nah. Ny Nordland has a fairly distinct style that I find recognizable. One, if MtaE were the same person, then that would be the end of NN. However, both players are still here. Two, while he has a tendency to ignore evidence that doesn't support his uber-race arguments, NN has a much clearer style and is much more careful in his arguments. NN couldn't be MtaE without forgetting everything he's learned on these forums in the past 8 months or whatever it is.

Could it be that Ny Nordland and Means are two personalities of the same guy?

Everything is possible in your mind when you dont take your medication.

*snip*

Honestly, NN, I just said you had learned so much and then you make comments like this that suggest you still don't recognize that this greatly increases the odds of getting DEATed. Jeez, dude, you two don't like each other, we get it. Are you really going to get yourself DEATed over it?

Everything is possible in your mind when you dont take your medication.

Including developing racist theories.

Ignoring those that may be baiting you, do you have a reply to my comments? Those regarding your plan for eugenics.

I was pondering ways to ease the burden of outsourcing, to create a more competitive work-force, to increase the standard of education, and to create a more informed populace. I believe that all these problems could be rectified through a simple solution.

We should encourage the most intelligent people to breed via monetary incentives -- for example, we'll pay someone with an IQ of 125-135 $500 dollars to give either sperm or ova to the state. There may be a similar pay scale for the most athletic and such. We then need a subject in which to implant the resultant fetus. We'll pay each woman who consents to having the fetus implanted inside her, say, $10,000 dollars (that's quite close to minimum wage for doing nothing at all). After the woman gives birth, the baby will be raised by the state according to the most modern baby-care techniques to maximize the capacity of the baby, after which point he/she will be given to a loving family. It's like evolution, only we are the driving force behind it, implementing our own version of natural selection. In the long run, we'll come an ultra-intelligent, hyper-competitive economy and outstrip any other country in the world. It seems to be a win-win scenario.

Seig Heil, Mein Fuhrer.:headbang:

Now you're advocating eugenics to create a master race? Yep, your Hitler reincarnated.

The sweetest argument against eugenics is that it is simply not possible. Society cannot control the procreative process. At best, it may to be manipulate a few bloodlines ineffectively.

You see, procreation is our most basic instinct. The only way to countermand that through societal means would be to create such an oppressive society that even our basest instincts are repressed.

Good luck trying to redirect or stop the tsunami of sex, parenting, species survival, mothering instinct and plain old fashioned lust.

And if you succeed for an instant, the anger and frustration that will undoubtedly build up will destroy anything in its path.

Humans would sooner get rid of society than get rid of natural procreation.

I was pondering ways to ease the burden of outsourcing, to create a more competitive work-force, to increase the standard of education, and to create a more informed populace. I believe that all these problems could be rectified through a simple solution.

We should encourage the most intelligent people to breed via monetary incentives -- for example, we'll pay someone with an IQ of 125-135 $500 dollars to give either sperm or ova to the state. There may be a similar pay scale for the most athletic and such. We then need a subject in which to implant the resultant fetus. We'll pay each woman who consents to having the fetus implanted inside her, say, $10,000 dollars (that's quite close to minimum wage for doing nothing at all). After the woman gives birth, the baby will be raised by the state according to the most modern baby-care techniques to maximize the capacity of the baby, after which point he/she will be given to a loving family. It's like evolution, only we are the driving force behind it, implementing our own version of natural selection. In the long run, we'll come an ultra-intelligent, hyper-competitive economy and outstrip any other country in the world. It seems to be a win-win scenario.

Wow......that's idiotic. You do realize that the best way to have the 'best' population is to let normal people have kids with normal people. It creates the absloute best result. Many countries have tried this already. China, Germany, Russia...the list goes on with all the communistic crazy countries. And you know hoe it turned out? It didn't turn out at all. It was a waste of time and money as it doesn't work. When someone has a genius IQ or their incredibly athletic, it's just as likely that their parents were idiots or fat people. And IQ really isn't that much genetics. It depends on how you were raised, your education, your economic position, how cared after you are, ect....

The main point is that Eugenics doesn't work. Look at Shaqueal O'neil. His parents are both small. Not him. The best way is for mesomorphs to have babies with mesomorphs. That's how a population survives. And what happens in about 10 or so generations when all your 'super' people are related?

Genetics doesn't work this way. Not at all.

If human intelligence is really dependant on genes, a fact disputable but quite possible, then it would be the worst to let all intelligent people breed and think that you'd get some sort oh ubermensch, as the nazis put it.

Human genes work best if complementing each other, so that each gene can balance out the shortcommings of the other. Why do you think that people are attracted to each other? Human, spontanous attraction is the best eugenics program you could have. We pick up the pheromones of a person and our brain decides if those pheromones indicate that these genes work good with ours.

There are no laws but a good rule of thumb is that the greater the difference between the genes, the higher the initial attraction. If two people with fitting genes have a real partnership or not depends of course on more factors, like their personalyties, their social background or if the girl has a cat and the guy a dog who don't get together as good as their owners.

Another problem, even if this did work, would be the gap this would produce between the optimized children and the normal. You would get a community where the rich buy themselves optimized babies and the poor with their less fitting babies would be grounded for generations.

"What, you are'nt genetically optimized... Well, nice meeting you but i fear you don't quallify for this job in managment. But how about a job as janitor?"

For more examples, I would suggest that you, MTAE, watch the movie Gattaca. I would suggest that to everyone because it is a great movie. If you already watched this, MTAE, and this movie brought you to this idea, you utterly missed the point.

And another thing... Argumenting with "misericordia" is not suitable in an intteligent discussion, but knowing that such a thing is a vital point in this world is vital. A country that would start such a programm would be the center of global disdain, might loose trade or even intelligent people who go to less "inhumane" countrys, effectivly damaging the country for years to come. On the other hand, such a program would yield, if it really was successfull, its first "fruits" after 20-25 years, all the while costing the government money and possibly damaging it further in other means, like riots from poor people who would feel threatend and so on...

I hope this refute is logical enough for you, MTAE.

Sincerly awaiting your response

(btw, sry for any errors, my english is a little rusty.)

snip...will be raised by the state according to the most modern baby-care techniques to maximize the capacity of the baby....snip


Uhh....baby-care...techniques?:p So there's a degree on "Baby-Care Techniques"? Awsome

But truly, ya know why it won't work?


Because the "intelligent" people wouldn't want to work....They'd get bitchy about how smart they'd be, and try to order each other around

[/Board of Directors]

The citizens under my rule are subject to my orders without question. They are allowed to think but not express it unless , that expression leads to output. Out put in terms of military weaponry or monetary value. Why not just have your males use the state's prostitue mothers to have children for your use. That is what we do hear and it keeps everyone happy.

Why did they not adopt? There are many children in need of a home. If they were so desperate to have a child that they would willingly subject one to suffer through some genetic disease (which particular abnormality are we talking about anyway?), surely they could have adopted instead.


My brother and his wife were completely unaware that the combination of their genes would cause their child to have a genetic disease.
Most people do not have complete genetic mark ups done before they have children.
They fall in love, get married and have kids.
It is not so clinical for the irrational human beings that most of us are.
As to which disease he has I am not sure.
All I know is that he had tumors in his digestive tract and to this day cannot eat many foods.

How exactly does suggesting we encourage people of healthy genetics breed more equate to advocating the elimination of ‘love’ or ‘family’?

Because love and family are not included in your (excuse me MTAE's) OP!
Children raised without love will NOT become the upstanding productive members of society that you (excuse me MTAE's) OP claim that they will be.
Children that grow up without a sense of family will also not grow up to be well adjusted members of society.

Once again, baseless personal attacks do not support your argument. Hurling invectives is not appropriate behavior.

Cheerleading for war while sitting safe at a computer is not appropriate behavior.
Calling for the genocide of Arabs is not appropriate behavior.
Having the nerve to say that the genocide of the Native American people (which is part of my heritage by the way) was just fine because they "mismanaged their resources" is not appropriate behavior.
Saying that a child predator such as Mark Foley should be applauded because they are furthering the “rights of children” is not appropriate behavior.
You (excuse me MTAE) do not have a leg to stand on when telling others what appropriate behavior is.

I have yet to be called a troll on this forum.
You (excuse me MTAE) cannot say the same.

Suggesting a topic of discussion, such as eugenics, is a very rational and sensible thing to do. Topics such as these should be discussed and debated. It will be a truly sad day when society has degenerated to such an extent that any opinion outside of mainstream convention is forbidden from being discussed.

No one here is arguing against debate.
But when you (excuse me MTAE) make such statements as "To further encourage women into this scheme, we could also cut off welfare for women who are capable of getting pregnant but refuse their patriotic duty" do not expect rational people to sit by and let you ponder your little totalitarian schemes without calling you out.

Why is it that these ideas are not being discussed by our politicians and are left up to people like you on Internet forums?
Could it possibly be that politicians are smart enough to know that if they ever even spoke of the ideas that come from your diseased mind that they would no longer have a career?

Ponder that for a while.

Somebody has to kindly inform Means and Entropic Puppet that:

Oceania from 1984 is not a good place;
Gilead from The Handmaid's Tale is not a good place;
The nation in Brave New World is not a good place;
etc.

Read. You can even begin with things more to your level, such as Mother Goose, but start reading dystopian literature after you developed skill. And read it as it should be read, not with a psychopathic smile of delight.

Means has at least once suggested the equivalent to state-sponsored rape. And yes, forced impregnation IS rape.

Means, why don't you walk up to your mother with an artificial insemination crew and inform that she has to "do her civic duty" by forcibly impregnating her as you so calmly proposed? Or is she inferior and - by that logic you're so proud to follow - so are you?

I have just realized another problem with this argument, as well. If this were to implemented, then why not engineer people so that they do not have "undesirable" and seemingly "harmful" genes. Take sickle cell anemia for example, a debilitating and seemingly harmful disease, which can cause some health problems.

However, people who have the sickle-cell gene are immune, or have an increased immunity, to malaria. As the blood cells do not hold enough oxygen to sustain the parasite, it dies, and does not spread. Thus, showing that a normally "undesirable" gene can actually be helpful.

We need genetic variation, as it allows us to adapt to the changing world. If we were to try to make people more homologous, we would be removing possibilities for adaption, and thus lowering our chances of success.

I was pondering ways to ease the burden of outsourcing, to create a more competitive work-force, to increase the standard of education, and to create a more informed populace. I believe that all these problems could be rectified through a simple solution.

We should encourage the most intelligent people to breed via monetary incentives -- for example, we'll pay someone with an IQ of 125-135 $500 dollars to give either sperm or ova to the state. There may be a similar pay scale for the most athletic and such. We then need a subject in which to implant the resultant fetus. We'll pay each woman who consents to having the fetus implanted inside her, say, $10,000 dollars (that's quite close to minimum wage for doing nothing at all). After the woman gives birth, the baby will be raised by the state according to the most modern baby-care techniques to maximize the capacity of the baby, after which point he/she will be given to a loving family. It's like evolution, only we are the driving force behind it, implementing our own version of natural selection. In the long run, we'll come an ultra-intelligent, hyper-competitive economy and outstrip any other country in the world. It seems to be a win-win scenario.
OK, let's say we've achieved your dream of a Master American Race, and everyone around here has really high IQs. What are you going to do about the mental illness? Half of these geniuses are going to be autistic, schizophrenic, drug-addicted, depressed, bipolar, and whatnot, because that's how genuises are. Just look at Hemingway, Dickinson, Franklin, Proust, and a million other very bright people. Mostly alcoholics or depressives.

(I'm trying very hard to ignore the billions of other obvious ways I could argue with MTAE)

Because the "intelligent" people wouldn't want to work....They'd get bitchy about how smart they'd be, and try to order each other around

[/Board of Directors]
Good old Colony-of-Alphas syndrome.;)

My brother and his wife were completely unaware that the combination of their genes would cause their child to have a genetic disease.
Most people do not have complete genetic mark ups done before they have children.
They fall in love, get married and have kids.
It is not so clinical for the irrational human beings that most of us are.
As to which disease he has I am not sure.
All I know is that he had tumors in his digestive tract and to this day cannot eat many foods.
That was a fair question I asked, no need to get snippy about it.

Because love and family are not included in your (excuse me MTAE's) OP!
Children raised without love will NOT become the upstanding productive members of society that you (excuse me MTAE's) OP claim that they will be.
Children that grow up without a sense of family will also not grow up to be well adjusted members of society.

First off – I am not MTAE. Using somebody else’s comments as an attempt to discredit me is, once again, idiotic. Do I use Louis Farrakhan’s comments to attack you? Then don’t use someone else’s comments to attack me. Calling someone a puppet of another is also an inappropriate way of dealing with someone – I am not MTAE. If you cannot grasp that there could possibly be more than one person that doesn’t agree with everything you say, you are eventually going to run into some serious problems in life.

Secondly, unless you are proposing that only those with severe genetic defects love their children, preventing them from breeding in no way eliminates love or family. Most people do not have any serious genetic abnormalities, yet are still raised in a loving family environment. Go figure – normal people can love their children

Cheerleading for war while sitting safe at a computer is not appropriate behavior.
Calling for the genocide of Arabs is not appropriate behavior.
Having the nerve to say that the genocide of the Native American people (which is part of my heritage by the way) was just fine because they "mismanaged their resources" is not appropriate behavior.
Saying that a child predator such as Mark Foley should be applauded because they are furthering the “rights of children” is not appropriate behavior.
You (excuse me MTAE) do not have a leg to stand on when telling others what appropriate behavior is.
I have not done any of those things, nor does everyone necessarily agree that they constitute inappropriate behavior.
Perhaps I do, but that is not the point.

I have yet to be called a troll on this forum.
You (excuse me MTAE) cannot say the same.
I do not believe I have ever been called a troll.
Once again, just because I defend his right to bring up such debates in no way makes me a puppet of MTAE. Something I think will drive the point home to you…. You are worse than Bush saying “You are either with us or against us” because you are stating that I am either with you or a puppet of whomever you hate. Do you honestly believe that I must be a sheep or a puppet if I do not wholly agree with only your position? Don’t you find that just a little bit ironic?

No one here is arguing against debate.
But when you (excuse me MTAE) make such statements as "To further encourage women into this scheme, we could also cut off welfare for women who are capable of getting pregnant but refuse their patriotic duty" do not expect rational people to sit by and let you ponder your little totalitarian schemes without calling you out.
Fine, say MTAE made an inappropriate comment. I did not say that.

I happen to believe that women on welfare shouldn’t be having kids at all since if they cant support themselves, how can they support a child? But that is a topic for a different thread.

Why is it that these ideas are not being discussed by our politicians and are left up to people like you on Internet forums?
Could it possibly be that politicians are smart enough to know that if they ever even spoke of the ideas that come from your diseased mind that they would no longer have a career?

Politicians do not discuss a lot of things because most voters are grossly ignorant and ill informed. Most voters get everything they know from a handful of sound bites. As such, a politician cannot make a comment that might be turned into a bad sound bite by their opponents.

Nixon knew the best thing for the economy would be a free market, but the voting public was demanding price controls. With the body politic not understanding that price controls make things worse, he had no choice but to impose them or commit political suicide

Social Security is a train wreck which is in desperate need of reform – the longer it goes without substantial change, the worse things get. Everyone agrees that it is in dire need of change or there will soon be a massive problem, but nobody will touch it. They call it the ‘third rail’ for a reason (as in electrified trains, the third rail is the power supply – touch it and you fry). Just because a subject is political suicide to bring up does not mean it is the product of a “diseased mind”.

Personally, I agree that MTAE’s proposal is overly dramatic and a bit absurd. This does not mean that the entire subject should be forbidden. If you take any concept and push it to the extremes it will be ludicrous.

Let us take welfare and push it to that level – anyone with more than the poverty line income will have all their assets confiscated and given to those with lesser incomes. In fact, anyone that makes an income at all shows they have more ability to provide for themselves so those less able should receive more assets than those able to work. The more money you make, the less you are allowed to keep. It will be a truly progressive system – anyone who is productive in society shall be reduced to abject poverty to provide for those who are unable to work or are not as productive.

Does this mean that welfare is a ridiculous system and anyone even mentioning a transfer of payments or assistance to those in poverty should be tarred and feathered? The extreme libertarians might agree with that view, but most people agree that a safety net is beneficial to society.

The problem I see you having is perhaps you have an immediate ‘fight or flight’ response to anything that isn’t 100% in agreement with your statements. Thus a little switch goes off in your brain that makes you attack anyone with a differing point of view. You are unable to see differing levels of concepts and must immediately paint it as a black or white issue – everyone should have as many kids as possible whenever they want or it will destroy families and there will be no love anymore. Which explains why China is a loveless society completely devoid of families eh?

If you cannot rationally evaluate a subject without immediately attacking anyone of a differing viewpoint (including being unable to recognize that I am not MTAE) then please go join the Bush administration, neo-Nazis, nation of Islam, PETA, some evangelical movement - whichever strikes your interest – as those are groups which like the way you think.



Note: I find the level of personal attack in this post a little distasteful but highly appropriate for the post to which I am replying.