Good Genes: An Argument for Eugenics

Post Reply New Topic

I'm done with this thread. I've said everything that I felt I needed to say.

Something else I want to throw in here for flavor in the discussion and as something of a guidepost.

We're animals first, people second. Not by moral or ethical choice but by blunt fact. We strongly prefer to be at least as moral as we need to be to have the things we want when things are going well. When things aren't going well you start seeing a lot of people begin to behave like lions, cheetahs, and gazelles.

There's maybe two groups that seem to have a moral revulsion to that to the point of entirely disregarding it or considering it some type of Ayn Rand libertarian 'worldview' or twisting of the data - one group are people who believe that the earth is 6,000 years old and that evolution never occurred, the other part seem to be a fair percentage of PC liberals (not all but the more utopian and strongly nurture over nature in their numbers).

I think it's incredibly important to pay attention to what we are, what we've accomplished in terms of complex sociology, but equally important for us to remember that aspect of what we are when we make decisions or reflect upon society's situations and problems. The eugenics conversation is very tightly in line with examining that underbelly or subhuman aspect that has constant implications in how our world works and alot of the really strange things that seem to be unresolvable. My biggest concern, for people who just dismiss it out of hand, is that I just hope they aren't making the mistake of thinking that human instinct is tabula rasa or a social construct that can be neutralized at birth. If so there's a really good chance they'll be the kinds of people who continue to have ideas that look great on paper, almost perpetually fail, and when their ideas do fail they'll usually look for some group to pin it on when they're really flying without basic precepts.

it seems to me that the most important goal of civilization is to improve our ability to resist the morally atavist fallback drives, to suppress our animal natures and/or harness them in positive directions. I believe that should be the first part of public education after the 3 Rs.

That's exactly why I think it's also critical that we do our best to keep it all going and as constructively as we possibly can. It's really our only shot at not falling right back down on our faces.

IMHO the only practical way that can happen is if we kick randian "virtuous selfishness" into the ashcan of history and grok that we're all in this thing together, that we are all our brother's keeper.

If that collapses into some type of communism or social democracy though we're even worse off than with the blend of socialism, corporatism, and capitalism we presently have in our baskets.

the Nordic nations' "third way" seems to be working excellently for them, I wonder why we can't at least borrow a few of their tricks? is it that multicultural societies are doomed to eventual fracture along their natural fault lines?

Sweden might be a great example of how fragile the third way is just on what's happening with their own attempts at multiculturalism.

My take is that civilization needs something a lot more modular to survive the ebbs and flows than just relying on the health of nation states. I do think technology, internet, and the exchange of ideas will likely make the nation states increasingly recede into the background with respect to political glamour.

or it will turn them all into one big world state.

I think that would be in shambles even without any rebellion. The EU can't even hold itself together and the only reason why the US does so is that the whole geographic system was founded on the same legal document and conformed by things like the Bill of Rights and UCC.

That and you have the force of human stupidity, distributed through a population of over 7 billion. The smartest dictator alive couldn't whip a lake into subjugation or make a hurricane obey him even if attempting to punish water or wind made him feel a little better.

Let us not forget that the fittest organism is not the strongest, but the best adapted to its environment.

Talking of autism, it is far more ethical to discontinue supporting austistic people than depriving them (in favor of the unborn) of the "wonders" of life, which they absolutely are able to experience. Disagreeing on the last point is a sign of psychological condition, not autism.

And I'm in no way obliged to be a "benefactor" of humanity. The feeling of guilt (over "consuming resources") felt by some people is utterly evil. If you're not willing to "consume resources" as an aspie, then don't seek help; instead of endorsing some rule that prevents other aspies from living fulfilling lives.

Let me ask though, just to make sure I don't have a psychological condition, what does discontinuing support of autistic people constitute?

I have got my diagnosis recently. And in my country, aspies have more "rights" or additional assistance:
-counseling
-financial assistance
-contact person
-etc...

(I meant that it would be more ethical to stop offering these services than what I've mentioned.)

I don't know how it looks like in other countries.
If I'm being unclear, it's because English is not my first language.

I'd think that anyone who can work should work, just that there are LFA's (low functioning autistics) who can't walk, can't speak, etc.. where they clearly should have access to that and there are some HFA's as well who might look somewhat normal but despite their best efforts they can't hold a job, I'd think the same applies here also.

To give out large sums of social wellfare can be dangerous in that it does inspire reprisal from the society you're in, but I don't know that many people would go along with the argument that the experience of life in and of itself is so wonderful that it's worth living on the streets and being handled in whichever way by the people around you because you couldn't float yourself in the system you live in. Anguish is a very big deal, especially if it's long-term, ongoing, and a person is watching their life degenerate and they know that on the current plan it'll continue to do so until they pass away in a really pitiful state. Redundant anguish is that corrosive a situation where I think most people are forced to confront the realization that quality means more than quantity - for example the option to have one million dollars vs two or three is a very different offer than the offer to have one kidney stone vs. two or three; the proportionality of desire is clearly inverse in this case.

I'm not sure I'm necessarily in favor of abortion in the case of babies with positive prenatal screens but I'm not sure how much I'd necessarily be against genetic treatments or modification in cases where someone was likely to come out with no ability to take care of themselves and they were able to modify the situation by turning a few switches off that would leave them something closer to NT with aspie traits. In that case the them they could have been who spent their life in assisted living doesn't get to exist, but the them who goes on perhaps with a foot in both worlds, has quirky friends, a gainful career, and a relatively self-sustained life wouldn't have existed either if the choice against such were made.

I need somebody to flip a few of my incorrectly configured switches.

I's just like to make a point about the way animals are being referred to in the above quotes. Animals are more clear-headed than humans. They don't delude themselves with ideas of their own greatness. They just get on with it. In some ways I think their behaviour is more morally acceptable than ours, even though they are unaware of it.


So have as many babies as you can and throw them all to the wolves?


I don't see why people should be made to suffer for the chance that others may have enjoyable experiences. Why does the success get more weight than the failure? Both are are true experiences.