New waves of Eugenics in the Netherlands

Page 3 of 5 [ 77 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

ASPartOfMe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 68
Gender: Male
Posts: 39,637
Location: Long Island, New York

04 Jul 2018, 10:43 am

aspiesavant wrote:

ASPartOfMe wrote:

Eugenics is supposed to make superior people. The goal is to improve life otherwise why do it.

It's not about making people superior as much as it is about preventing people from degenerating towards a more primitive, more barbaric state.

In nature, natural selection favors individuals best suited for a particular environment while weeding out those least suited. This allows the best suited ones to live longer and procreate at greater rates, effectively improving the adaptability of the species to that particular environment for the groups living these.

Technology and especially advanced medicine largely eliminate this process of natural selection. To make things worse, modern life causes those with highest intelligence and moral standards to procreate as much lower rates than those with lower intelligence and moral standards. The combination of both trends results in a significant decrease of the adaptability of the species to our environment. A mass influx of low IQ immigrants further aggravates this situation.

Basically, we live in a society where technology is becoming ever more complex and people are becoming dumber with every generation. This means we're accelerating towards a threshold where the population will no longer be capable of maintaining the civilization we've built.

The point of eugenics is to replace natural selection with artificial selection, so this dysgenic trend can be reverted and the otherwise inevitable collapse of Western civilization can be avoided.

ASPartOfMe wrote:

It is racist to judge a race as inferoir. Your science has concluded that the differences between races is not about inferiority or superoirity Blacks are not innately criminal for example.

Blacks are not innately criminal, but they do tend to be more aggressive, more impulsive and less cautious. The average IQ of Blacks is also 17 points lower than the average IQ of Whites and 21 points lower than that of East-Asians.

Here's an overview of what 30 years of research on worldwide racial differences have taught us :

source

SAT scores show the exact same gap :

source

Income differences also shows this same gap :

source

So does welfare use :

source

So do prison populations :

source

No matter at which dataset you look like, you always see East-Asians come on top, African Blacks and Australian Aboriginals at the bottom and Whites somewhere in between. And this irrespective of wealth or social status. And this irrespective of whether one's home country was once colonized by Whites. And this irrespective of whether they're part of an immigrant population or whether they live in their ancestral country.

ASPartOfMe wrote:

You seem to think western society is civilized other societies less so. But at times Africans and Asians have been more “advanced” then western societies.

Until Whites colonized their continent, Sub-saharan Africans & Australian aboriginals never had any civilization that evolved beyond the Iron age level. And after Whites left their African colonies and left Black rulers in charge, they all reverted to a state of despotism, with lots of violence, corruption, poverty, etc.

It's become trendy to blame White colonizers for the mess Sub-saharan Africa is in today, but that's nothing but a totally unsubstantiated claim driven by vile anti-White racism. If colonialism were to blame, it would not explain why former East-Asian colonies did not just manage to emancipate themselves but actually move ahead of Europe and North-America! While the West is every more rapidly declining, places like Hongkong, Singapore & Shanghai manage to not just catch up with Western standards but have managed to surpass them.

Blacks being more aggressive, more impulsive and less cautious than other races as well as having a lower IQ and East-Asians being on the other side of that spectrum is all that's really needed why Sub-saharan Africa and East-Asia evolved the way they did and why they evolved so differently after the age of European colonization.

Anyway, this issue is only partially correlated to eugenics, as eugenics affects differences within a racial group as much as - if not more than - differences between racial groups. If Europeans were to force everyone who wasn't White to migrate from their territory, eugenics would still be necessary for the remaining White population.

ASPartOfMe wrote:

Why don’t you form your own whites only country?

In most of Europe, we had that for thousands of years. Then, in the 1960s, our traitorous "leaders" started importing large amounts of non-White immigrants against the wishes and interests of the general population.

To make things worse, anyone who has been publicly arguing against this import of non-White immigrants is being slandered as a "racist" and political parties intended to stop this process are often refused a public forum or otherwise boycotted by the powers that be. Meanwhile, endless "multicultural" propaganda is being pushed onto the gullible masses to convince them that their own replacement is good for them.

This has left Europeans powerless to stop their own replacement, although there are small pockets of resistance that seem to be growing as all the "multicultural" propaganda is becoming ever more ineffective.

ASPartOfMe wrote:

Mass immigration did not screw up America quite the opposite. The problem now is not immigration, it is that it has become acceptable for immigrants not to try and assimilate.

Mass immigration is precisely what allowed immigrants not to try and assimilate. Ghettoization is the logical consequence of mass migration. And why bother assimilating to the dominant culture of your country when you live in a ghetto where everyone around you shares the same immigrant culture?

ASPartOfMe wrote:

America was built on the adding some new and mixing it up with what was here.

America was built by Englismen, Irishmen, Germans, Dutchmen, Frenchmen, Spaniards and other Europeans.

These people all had roughly the same race and a very similar, compatible culture. Until the early 20th century, American culture was totally European. And except for the ancestors of former slaves, it was also predominantly European from a racial perspective. America was not "multicultural" at all by modern standards. It never really was the "melting pot" Israel Zangwill called it.

ASPartOfMe wrote:

Autistic difficulties are a result of disabiling traits

Autistic difficulties are a result of traits that are both disabling and enabling.

It is also Autism that produced men like Thomas Jefferson, Hans Christian Andersen, Amadeus Mozart, Nikola Tesla and many others among the world's greatest minds.

We should never forget that our greatest weaknesses are just the counterbalance of our greatest strengths!

Technology overall has improved our lives. If we have reached a point where it is too much of a good thing, that it is causing "deevolution" so to speak I do not see any reason why the "superior" would be immune from becoming dumber.

At times African civilizations have been as advanced if not more as white ones. The studies concluding that blacks as a race have deficits could be influenced by cultural norms, not unlike NT studies of Autistic deficits.

When eugenics became popular in America it was during and after a period of large Southern and Eastern European immigration. While not technically a racial matter these new immigrants often had darker skin than the white people already here. There was a religious element, the new immigrants were more Catholic and Jewish compared to the existing Protestants.

If you are going to argue science and logic it behooves you not to make a blanket statement that certain historical figures WERE autistic. We know these people had certain traits associated with Autism, nothing more. Those traits could have been because they were autistic, because they had another condition with similar traits, or they had no condition, it was just their personality.

_________________
“Self Acceptance is a process not a performance”
“You are autistic enough. And you always have been”

Professionally Identified and joined WP August 26, 2013
DSM 5: Autism Spectrum Disorder, DSM IV: Aspergers Moderate Severity.

aspiesavant
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Feb 2015
Posts: 579

04 Jul 2018, 12:02 pm

ASPartOfMe wrote:

Technology overall has improved our lives.

See eg. Industrial Society and Its Future on why this is not the case.

ASPartOfMe wrote:

I do not see any reason why the "superior" would be immune from becoming dumber.

That's not how it works.

It is not a matter of individuals becoming dumber, but of dumber populations outbreeding smarter populations.

It's well demonstrated by the movie "Idiocracy".

ASPartOfMe wrote:

At times African civilizations have been as advanced if not more as white ones.

Again, never did even a single civilization in sub-Saharan Africa evolve beyond the Iron age level before Whites colonized their continent. And after Whites left their African colonies and left Black rulers in charge, they all reverted to a primitive state of despotism, with lots of violence, corruption, poverty, etc.

Blacks never had a single advanced civilization.

ASPartOfMe wrote:

When eugenics became popular in America it was during and after a period of large Southern and Eastern European immigration. While not technically a racial matter these new immigrants often had darker skin than the white people already here.

That makes it technically a racial matter, since Southern-Europeans & Eastern-Europeans have a racial make-up that's different from that of Northern- or Western-Europeans.

ASPartOfMe wrote:

There was a religious element, the new immigrants were more Catholic and Jewish compared to the existing Protestants.

That also makes it a racial matter, as Jews are a distinct ethnic group (technically two groups : Askenazim & Sepharadim). And to qualify as Jewish, your ethnic make-up is far more important than your religious beliefs. Many Jews are in fact Atheistic and thus Jewish by ethnicity only, yet they still identity as Jews as strongly as their religious brethren.

ASPartOfMe wrote:

If you are going to argue science and logic it behooves you not to make a blanket statement that certain historical figures WERE autistic. We know these people had certain traits associated with Autism, nothing more.

They may not have had an Autism diagnosis, but that's only because the label "Autism" wasn't known by then. If you actually look at these people's lives, their Autism is pretty apparent.

By the way, you seem to have posted the same response twice. You may want to delete one of them to avoid the clutter.

blazingstar
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 19 Nov 2017
Age: 72
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,234

04 Jul 2018, 3:18 pm

from Wikipedia, in re: authors of quoted paper

John Philippe Rushton (December 3, 1943 – October 2, 2012) was a Canadian psychologist and author. He taught at the University of Western Ontario and became known to the general public during the 1980s and 1990s for research on race and intelligence, race and crime, and other apparent racial variations. His book Race, Evolution, and Behavior (1995) is about the application of r/K selection theory to humans.

Rushton's controversial work was heavily criticized by the scientific community for the questionable quality of its research,[1] with many alleging that it was conducted under a racist agenda.[2] From 2002 until his death, he served as the head of the Pioneer Fund, a research foundation that has been accused of being racist.[3]

And...

Arthur Robert Jensen (August 24, 1923 – October 22, 2012) was an American psychologist and author. He was a professor of educational psychology at the University of California, Berkeley.[1][2] Jensen was known for his work in psychometrics and differential psychology, the study of how and why individuals differ behaviorally from one another.

He was a major proponent of the hereditarian position in the nature and nurture debate, the position that genetics play a significant role in behavioral traits, such as intelligence and personality. He was the author of over 400 scientific papers published in refereed journals[3] and sat on the editorial boards of the scientific journals Intelligence and Personality and Individual Differences.[4]

He was rated as one of the 50 most eminent psychologists of the 20th century.[5] He was also a controversial figure, largely for his conclusions regarding the causes of race-based differences in intelligence.[6]

The latter, and more credible author, was 82 years old when the article was published. Both were controversial and the controversies are documented in the literature.

The main problem with eugenics is that someone has to make the decision about who/what is good and who/what is bad and be dispassionate enough (anti-social personality disorder, anyone?) to carry it out. I don't sense that either of the main debaters here have any personal experience with individuals with profound intellectual disability.

More pertinent to this particular debate is that I do not see where aspiesavant has demonstrated that eugenics is the only way to save humanity/civilization/western society. I understand that is your opinion, aspiesavant, but I do not see the underlying proof. The sources you quote also have that opinion and it may be an opinion derived from a lot of study and thought, but again, these are polemics and not scientific proof as I was taught in university.

Still, an interesting discussion overall. Thank you both.

_________________
The river is the melody
And sky is the refrain - Gordon Lightfoot

aspiesavant
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Feb 2015
Posts: 579

04 Jul 2018, 7:26 pm

blazingstar wrote:

The latter, and more credible author, was 82 years old when the article was published. Both were controversial and the controversies are documented in the literature.

The (at least partially) hereditary nature of intelligence is controversial the same way evolution is controversial.

It's a political controversy rather than a scientific controversy.

Also from Wikipedia :

Snyderman and Rothman discovered that experts were in agreement about the nature of intelligence. "On the whole, scholars with any expertise in the area of intelligence and intelligence testing (defined very broadly) share a common view of the most important components of intelligence, and are convinced that it can be measured with some degree of accuracy." Almost all respondents picked out abstract reasoning, ability to solve problems and ability to acquire knowledge as the most important elements.

The study found that psychologists were in agreement about the heritability of intelligence in that almost all (94%) felt that it played a substantial role but there was disagreement regarding accuracy with half of those that felt qualified to reply in this section agreed that there was not enough evidence to estimate heritability accurately.

[...]

The role of genetics in the black-white IQ gap has been particularly controversial. The question regarding this in the survey asked "Which of the following best characterizes your opinion of the heritability of black-white differences in IQ?" Amongst the 661 returned questionnaires, 14% declined to answer the question, 24% voted that there was insufficient evidence to give an answer, 1% voted that the gap was "due entirely to genetic variation", 15% voted that it was "due entirely to environmental variation" and 45% voted that it was a "product of genetic and environmental variation". According to Snyderman and Rothman, this contrasts greatly with the coverage of these views as represented in the media, where the reader is led to draw the conclusion that "only a few maverick 'experts' support the view that genetic variation plays a significant role in individual or group difference, while the vast majority of experts believe that such differences are purely the result of environmental factors."

In their analysis of the survey results, Snyderman and Rothman state that the experts who described themselves as agreeing with the "controversial" partial-genetic views of Arthur Jensen did so only on the understanding that their identity would remain unknown in the published report. This was due, claim the authors, to fears of suffering the same kind of castigation experienced by Jensen for publicly expressing views on the correlation between race and intelligence which are privately held in the wider academic community.

[...]

The study also found that the media regularly presented the views of Kamin and evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould as representative of mainstream opinion among experts, whereas those who publicly state that individual and group differences are partly genetic, in particular psychologist Arthur Jensen, were characterized as a small minority. According to Snyderman and Rothman, their survey of expert opinion found that the opposite is actually true. In particular, the surveyed experts reported that they hold the scientific views of Kamin to be of only marginal importance.

[...]

Gordon (1992) wrote that "the survey dispels once and for all the media fiction that researchers like Jensen are outside of the mainstream because they examine such an impolitic hypothesis." Gottfredson (1994) suggested that the findings confirmed a systematic and ongoing attempt in the media and academia to promote the "egalitarian fiction" and "scientific fraud" that intelligence differences are entirely due to environmental causes.

Elsewhere on Wikipedia :

In 1994 the debate on race and intelligence was reignited by the publication of the book The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life by Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray. The book was received positively by the media, with prominent coverage in Newsweek, Time, the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal.

[...]

In 1994 a group of 52 scientists, including Rushton, Lynn, Jensen and Eysenck, were cosignatories of an op-ed article in the Wall Street Journal written by Linda Gottfredson entitled "Mainstream Science on Intelligence". The article, supporting the conclusions of The Bell Curve, was later republished in an expanded version in the journal Intelligence. The editorial included the statements:

"Genetics plays a bigger role than environment in creating IQ differences among individuals ... The bell curve for whites is centred roughly around IQ 100; the bell curve for American blacks roughly around 85 ... black 17-year olds perform, on the average, more like white 13-year olds in reading, math and science, with Hispanics in between."

[...]

In 2002, Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen, published IQ and the Wealth of Nations. Vanhanen claimed "Whereas the average IQ of Finns is 97, in Africa it is between 60 and 70. Differences in intelligence are the most significant factor in explaining poverty." A complaint by Finland's "Ombudsman for Minorities", Mikko Puumalainen, resulted in Vanhanen being considered to be investigated for incitement of "racial hatred" by the Finnish National Bureau of Investigations.[131] In 2004, the police stated they found no reason to suspect he incited racial hatred and decided not to launch an investigation.

[...]

A 2007 meta-analysis by Rindermann found many of the same groupings and correlations found by Lynn and Vanhanen, with the lowest scores in sub-Saharan Africa, and a correlation of .60 between cognitive skill and GDP per capita. Hunt considers Rindermann's analysis to be much more reliable than Lynn and Vanhanen's.

[...]

In 2007 James D. Watson, Nobel laureate in biology, gave a controversial interview to the Sunday Times Magazine during a book tour in the United Kingdom. Watson stated he was “inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa” because “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really.” He also wrote that “there is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so.” This resulted in the cancellation of a Royal Society lecture, along with other public engagements, and his suspension from his administrative duties at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. He subsequently cancelled the tour and resigned from his position at CSHL, where he had served as either director, president or chancellor since 1968. However, Watson was later appointed chancellor emeritus of CSHL, and, as of 2009, he continued to advise and guide project work at the laboratory.

[...]

In 2016, Rindermann, Becker & Coyle (2016) attempted to replicate the findings of Snyderman & Rothman (1987) by surveying 71 psychology experts on the causes of international differences in cognitive test scores. They found that the experts surveyed ranked education as the most important factor of these differences, with genetics in second place (accounting in average for 15% of the gap, with high variability in estimates among experts) and health, wealth, geography, climate, and politics as the next most important factors. About 90% of experts in the survey believed there was a genetic component to international IQ gaps.

blazingstar wrote:

The main problem with eugenics is that someone has to make the decision about who/what is good and who/what is bad and be dispassionate enough (anti-social personality disorder, anyone?) to carry it out.

The issue of eugenics is anything but unique in this regard.

Life is full of situations where one person has to decide the fate of others. Judges, HR officers, social workers, medical doctors and many other professionals are all trained to make this sort of assessments.

If we allow judges to determine the life or death of a criminal, surely we should be able to find experts to determine a eugenics policy.

blazingstar wrote:

I don't sense that either of the main debaters here have any personal experience with individuals with profound intellectual disability.

Both of my parents used to work in a (different) mental institution. My mother worked in the "linnen" department, where she worked as a seamstress. My father assisted patients in labor therapy. His patients included many "difficult" cases, from recovering alcoholics and pedophiles to mentally disabled people. I visited both my mother's work and my father's work several times when I was a child. On one such occasion I was present at a birthday part of one of my father's patients. I also went along with one or two trips my father did with his patients.

Additionally, I did a student job alongside ex-patients (mostly recovering alcoholics) at my father's work for a few summers when I was around 20 years old. I also worked in the kitchen of my mother's work for one of two summers, where I had to bring food to the ward with the most extreme cases if intellectual disability.

To top it off, my best friend (who unfortunately died in a car crash a few months ago) had a history of both psychosis and drug abuse, which caused him to end up in a psychiatric hospital once or twice as well as in a rehab clinic. Several other people who are or were close to me have Autism, ADHD, BPD, etc. Also, several other people who are or were close to me have problems with alcoholism or amphetamine abuse.

So, I've had personal experience with individuals with all sorts of mental conditions for as long as I remember. And while I would definitely not promote sterilization or euthanasia for all of them, I have encountered some severe cases of mental disability (those in the ward I was talking about) that I found so shocking I've always felt these people would be better off dead than having to suffer such a wretched existence for decades.

blazingstar wrote:

More pertinent to this particular debate is that I do not see where aspiesavant has demonstrated that eugenics is the only way to save humanity/civilization/western society. I understand that is your opinion, aspiesavant, but I do not see the underlying proof. The sources you quote also have that opinion and it may be an opinion derived from a lot of study and thought, but again, these are polemics and not scientific proof as I was taught in university.

Again I recommend Stoddard's The Revolt Against Civilization (1922). Even though the book is 95 years old, it is more relevant today than it ever was. The book describes in great detail the dysgenic trends of its time, its causes and its consequences... many of which we are witnessing today. And it explains why eugenics is essential for stopping those trends. Although Stoddard was a bit naive in some aspects, he was a scholar with both great integrity and great erudition. And this made him one of the most influential eugenicists of his time, considered as the father of the Immigration Act of 1924.

If you want to read something more recent, check out Lynn's Dysgenics (1996) & Eugenics (2001). Both are considered standard works.

Now, you may argue that there are alternatives for eugenics for stopping the dysgenic trends that are accelerating western civilization towards the edge of the abyss. Feel free to propose such alternatives. I've been thinking about this for many years now, and I haven't been able to come up with any alternative other than abandoning technology and returning to a more primitive way of life (which Kaczynski proposes). And comparing both options, eugenics seems by far the most favorable option to me.

ASPartOfMe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 68
Gender: Male
Posts: 39,637
Location: Long Island, New York

04 Jul 2018, 9:11 pm

blazingstar wrote:

an interesting discussion overall. Thank you both.

You are welcome

aspiesavant wrote:

ASPartOfMe wrote:

Technology overall has improved our lives.

See eg. Industrial Society and Its Future on why this is not the case.

ASPartOfMe wrote:

I do not see any reason why the "superior" would be immune from becoming dumber.

That's not how it works.

It is not a matter of individuals becoming dumber, but of dumber populations outbreeding smarter populations.

It's well demonstrated by the movie "Idiocracy".

ASPartOfMe wrote:

At times African civilizations have been as advanced if not more as white ones.

ASPartOfMe wrote:

That makes it technically a racial matter, since Southern-Europeans & Eastern-Europeans have a racial make-up that's different from that of Northern- or Western-Europeans.

ASPartOfMe wrote:

There was a religious element, the new immigrants were more Catholic and Jewish compared to the existing Protestants.

ASPartOfMe wrote:

Yep, I did post the same thing twice and to my chagrin, it is too late to delete it now.

Since when has ethnicity and race become equivalent?

Might Southern Europeans be white people who have darker skins due to being from more sun exposure?

The only thing apparent about these historical figures is that they had traits common in autism. Anything else at this point is coming to a conclusion you want (and I want also) based on correlation equals causation logic. The fact that they lived too early to have been diagnosed means we can only suspect and might never know for certain. That people with known traits of autism have been historical figures is and of itself an argument against the eugenic elimination of autistic people. While it would be nicer if someday it can be proven these people were autistic it is not necessary.

I have noticed similarities between pro eugenics and pro-Applied Behavioral Analysis arguments. There are differences eugenics is based on a cause, the cause is irrelevant to ABA. Both view certain traits as inferior, both claim that what is an inferior trait is not a matter of judgment but pure science, both have decided that failure to follow their science means catastrophe.

aspiesavant
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Feb 2015
Posts: 579

05 Jul 2018, 3:56 am

ASPartOfMe wrote:

Since when has ethnicity and race become equivalent?

Traditionally, an "ethnic group" or "Volk" is defined a group of people that shares a substantial degree of culture and common ancestry. The word "race" delineates a very similar concept, although it's usually broader than "Volk" or "ethnic group". Also, "ethnic group" or "Volk" puts a greater emphasis on shared culture whereas "race" puts a greater emphasis on shared genetics.

Anyway, herebelow a German map from around 1900 of the different "Völker" in Europe.
Note how they are defined by cultural terms (Germanic, Romanic, Slavic, ...).

Now, here's an American map from around the same time, with the different races in Europe.
Note how they are defined by genetic terms (Nordic, Alpine, Meterranean, ...).

Yet, in spite of the different classifications (cultural vs genetic), the overlap between both classifications is striking :

ASPartOfMe wrote:

Might Southern Europeans be white people who have darker skins due to being from more sun exposure?

Southern Europeans have a greater admixture of African blood due to proximity to the continent, Muslim conquests (the Umayyad conquest of Hispania in particular), Rome having become a "multicultural" cosmopolis during the last few centuries of the Roman empire, etc.

ASPartOfMe wrote:

The only thing apparent about these historical figures is that they had traits common in autism.

I'm willing to acknowledge that it's not a clear-cut case for each of these individuals. Of some, we simply know too little details to be 100% certain. And in those cases, there may be alternate explanations for these individuals' eccentricities. However, in the case of Tesla it's hard to see him as anything but an Autistic savant.

Tesla had a carefully regimented daily schedule with work from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. and dinner at the same restaurant at precisely 8:10 p.m., to be served only by the headwaiter. He had physical tics such as repeatedly curling his toes 100 times each night. His eidetic memory that allowed him to instantly memorize books and possess perfect recall, allowing him to learn 8 languages easily. He demonstrated an early ability to perform complex integral calculus computations in his head.

Tesla also harbored a crippling series of phobias, maintained his celibacy, had a sensitivity to light and sound, and was intensely focused on numbers (especially the number three – he wouldn’t stay in a room whose number was not divisible by three). He was very soft spoken, but could be nasty in defense of his strange beliefs. He was generally reclusive and fanatically driven by his work. As he aged, he became even more eccentric, ultimately earning the derision of the scientific community. In spite of his fame, he died alone in a hotel room, nearly penniless.

If that doesn't sounds like an archetypal Autistic savant to you, I don't know what does.

ASPartOfMe wrote:

That people with known traits of autism have been historical figures is and of itself an argument against the eugenic elimination of autistic people.

Autism is responsible for humanities greatest weakness and its greatest strengths. The one thing all Autistic people share with each other is that they're far more extreme than the general population in a myriad of ways... from extremely good to extremely bad.

Autism could be perceived as an evolutionary strategy to produce extreme humans, to fit in extreme circumstances. Tony Attwood even argued that Asperger's Syndrome may be a next step in human evolution.

So, no, I'm definitely not arguing for using eugenics to eliminate Autistic traits from the population. In fact, I'd actually argue for using eugenics to favor certain Autistic traits!

ASPartOfMe wrote:

I have noticed similarities between pro eugenics and pro-Applied Behavioral Analysis arguments. There are differences eugenics is based on a cause, the cause is irrelevant to ABA. Both view certain traits as inferior, both claim that what is an inferior trait is not a matter of judgment but pure science, both have decided that failure to follow their science means catastrophe.

I'm insufficiently familiar with ABA to comment on that.

All I can say here, is that what is passed off as science isn't always science. Creationists also try to pass off their ramblings as science. As do psychoanalysts. Yet, both are clearly pseudosciences and are not taken seriously by any self-respecting scientist today.

blazingstar
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 19 Nov 2017
Age: 72
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,234

05 Jul 2018, 8:32 am

aspiesavant, I am having trouble following your argument. You said your argument is political, not scientific. But you are using scientific studies to move your position forward. You can't use scientific research and papers without addressing the quality of the science, how the papers are reviewed, and the presence or absence of controversy and the use of the scientific method.

When asked to establish foundation of your arguments, you refer a book written in 1922, during a period when eugenics was culturally popular. Are you really stating that the best information for saving the world through eugenics is almost 100 years old? No one has done anything more recently?

I disagree with your assertion that we can move forward with an ethical way to apply eugenics based on previous attempts to make life and death decisions. I am not aware of any process in which decisions of life and death are made which do not have ethical controversies. Even the death penalty for criminals who have committed without question incredibly horrible crimes is controversial. When medical life and death decisions are made, at least in the US, they are made by a committee of experts in the field, not by one person. And the US position differs from, for example, the Australian position. In addition, information about who is valuable and worth saving and who is not changes over time.

In reference to your experience with people with profound disabilities, I still disagree that you have had meaningful human experience with people with significantly lower IQs that yours. (And this doesn't even address the relevance of IQ to human value.) It takes significant, long term interaction to learn to communicate with and relate to and see the value in individuals who are very different from us. Your position indicates a complete lack of understanding of human capacity for meaningful life and relationships even at low levels of what you see as value and usefulness. However, this was a side issue.

The issue of relationship of intelligence to genetics is not the question here. The question is: Is IQ a relevant criterion for determining a person's worth?

_________________
The river is the melody
And sky is the refrain - Gordon Lightfoot

kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

05 Jul 2018, 8:36 am

A book written in 1922 about "races" would certainly "not cut the mustard" here.

Much of this "racial" stuff was based on one pseudoscience or other.

Think about "phrenology"--basing a person's intelligence on bumps on the head.....

Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,950
Location:

05 Jul 2018, 9:55 am

I did not see any mention of euthanizing or sterilizing someone before they've produced offspring, which would clearly indicate some form of eugenics protocol. Assuming otherwise indicates a mind-set than favors conspiracy theories.

_________________
The mere fact that science may not yet adequately explain an object, event, or experience does not mean the immediate explanation should automatically default to a conspiratorial, extraterrestrial, paranormal, or supernatural cause.

aspiesavant
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Feb 2015
Posts: 579

05 Jul 2018, 2:15 pm

blazingstar wrote:

You said your argument is political, not scientific.

Where did I say that?

blazingstar wrote:

But you are using scientific studies to move your position forward.

I believe the scientific method is not just the most reliable, but the only reliable way to learn anything about anything.

blazingstar wrote:

You can't use scientific research and papers without addressing the quality of the science, how the papers are reviewed, and the presence or absence of controversy and the use of the scientific method.

Sure!

blazingstar wrote:

When asked to establish foundation of your arguments, you refer a book written in 1922, during a period when eugenics was culturally popular. Are you really stating that the best information for saving the world through eugenics is almost 100 years old? No one has done anything more recently?

I also refered to Lynn's Dysgenics (1996) & Eugenics (2001). And I referenced several other works from other authors, in the sections quoted from Wikipedia.

But yes, as a collector of antiquarian books, I have a tendency to prefer books from around the 1920s. In my experience, sources from that era tend to be a lot more objective and less polluted by political agendas than modern sources. In my experience, science was generally held up to a much higher standard than it is today.

blazingstar wrote:

I am not aware of any process in which decisions of life and death are made which do not have ethical controversies. Even the death penalty for criminals who have committed without question incredibly horrible crimes is controversial. When medical life and death decisions are made, at least in the US, they are made by a committee of experts in the field, not by one person. And the US position differs from, for example, the Australian position. In addition, information about who is valuable and worth saving and who is not changes over time.

That's precisely why we need science to determine objective standards for making this sort of life-and-death decisions.

Another one of Stoddard's book is completely decidated to arguing for the use of the scientific method in area, including moral issues. It's titled "Scientific Humanism" (1926). Or if you prefer something more recent, you might want to check out Sam Harris's "The Moral Landscape" (2010), which makes the same argument.

blazingstar wrote:

In reference to your experience with people with profound disabilities, I still disagree that you have had meaningful human experience with people with significantly lower IQs that yours.

You were refering to disability.

If you're talking about intelligence... My own mother has the mind of a 10-year-old. It barely gets any more personal than that.

Either way, my IQ is in the 99th percentile (137, WAIS-III), which means the vast majority of people around me have an IQ that's significantly lower than mine.

blazingstar wrote:

(And this doesn't even address the relevance of IQ to human value.)

I never made the argument that IQ alone is a sufficient criterium to consider negative eugenics.

Criminal history and proneness to violence are far more important criteria.

Low IQ only becomes a real issue when it involves either the total inability to function in society or a strong tendency towards antisocial behavior.

blazingstar wrote:

It takes significant, long term interaction to learn to communicate with and relate to and see the value in individuals who are very different from us.

I'm an Autistic person with an IQ in the 99th percentile.

That means most people are very different from me.

Do you really think I don't know how difficult it is to learn to communicate with people very different from yourself?

blazingstar wrote:

Your position indicates a complete lack of understanding of human capacity for meaningful life and relationships even at low levels of what you see as value and usefulness.

I could not disagree more.

My position is both based on an understanding of human capacity for meaningful life and relationships even at low levels of what I see as value and usefulness... but also on how much individual lifes can make the lives or others better or worse. I look at both the quality of life of the individual and the impact that individual has on the quality of life of others. And I try to look at the biggest picture imaginable.

blazingstar wrote:

The issue of relationship of intelligence to genetics is not the question here. The question is: Is IQ a relevant criterion for determining a person's worth?

It is a relevant criterion. However, as you pointed out, it is but one of many criteria to consider. Sociopaths with a high IQ who act on their antisocial instincts are most definitely a greater burden on society than a typical person with Down Syndrome.

Spectral Aurtist
Snowy Owl

Joined: 7 Feb 2016
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 153
Location: Helltopia

05 Jul 2018, 4:47 pm

kraftiekortie wrote:

If I've understood the gist of this then I am forced to agree. Science is (if it is good science at all) forever open to revision and making irreversible decisions (FOR others) based upon what amounts to a but a blink of the eye in the history of science is beyond unwise, it's short sighted in the absurd. If there were a virus one could engineer that based on it's own limited genetic code were going to decide based on it's own standard and frame of reference who was an was not viable.....we would be rushing to cure it. Variety is better for the survival of a species it's been shown many times.

it's so comforting to think that we are so much more advanced than those people of science before us, but if we cannot see how limited we truly are as they could not see it then it is simply not true and we only represent some number of iterations of the same. having walked further down an old road doesn't make one a better walker...it only makes one further down...the same road.

blazingstar
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 19 Nov 2017
Age: 72
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,234

05 Jul 2018, 5:05 pm

Spectral Aurtist wrote:

kraftiekortie wrote:

Well said.

_________________
The river is the melody
And sky is the refrain - Gordon Lightfoot

blazingstar
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 19 Nov 2017
Age: 72
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,234

05 Jul 2018, 5:12 pm

aspiesavant wrote:

The (at least partially) hereditary nature of intelligence is controversial the same way evolution is controversial.

It's a political controversy rather than a scientific controversy.

per your request.

_________________
The river is the melody
And sky is the refrain - Gordon Lightfoot

Richard_the_ Dogged
Snowy Owl

Joined: 3 Jul 2018
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 132
Location: Planet Earth

05 Jul 2018, 6:20 pm

I'm new to this board, but in my view, disability labels like Autism, Aspergers, and like Neurological Difference, all open the door to eugenics. Its people living by seeking pity, rather than by finding comrades and standing up for themselves.

As I see it, Autism, Aspergers, Neurological Difference, these are all fighting words.

_________________
Autism-Aspergers is just a concept invented to legitimate the abuse of children and adults. Neuro-Diversity is just a way of pleading for pity. Everytime we endorse these concepts, we are further maginalizing ourselves, and encouraging child abuse. Autism-Asperger's could never even exist without Nazi Social Darwinism and Eugenics. So I no longer talk about these, I talk about lived experience, often the experience of being othered and then persecuted. I call this experience of having intelligence, insight, intuition, and mystical abilities, the Shamanic Experience. And those of us who live it need to start banding together and protecting ourselves, each other, and the children of today. Beautiful Planet, just a rotten economic and political system.

aspiesavant
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Feb 2015
Posts: 579

05 Jul 2018, 7:23 pm

Spectral Aurtist wrote:

kraftiekortie wrote:

If I've understood the gist of this then I am forced to agree.

Actually, modern research increasingly discredits Boasian anthropology, confirming most of the "racial stuff" from the 1920s. See my previous posts for details.

Spectral Aurtist wrote:

Variety is better for the survival of a species it's been shown many times.

Too little variety is bad. Too much variety is bad as well.

As with so many things in life, it's all about balance, really.

Spectral Aurtist wrote:

Vit's so comforting to think that we are so much more advanced than those people of science before us, but if we cannot see how limited we truly are as they could not see it then it is simply not true and we only represent some number of iterations of the same. having walked further down an old road doesn't make one a better walker...it only makes one further down...the same road.

"When you think of it, almost all human behaviour and activity is essentially no different from animal behaviour. The most advanced technologies and craftsmanship bring us at best up to the super-chimpanzee level. Actually, the gap between Plato or Nietzsche and the average human is greater than between that chimpanzee and the average human. The realm of the real spirit, the true artist, the saint, the great philosopher, is rarely achieved. Why so few? Why is world history and evolution not stories of progress but an endless and futile addition of zeros? No greater values have been developed. Hell, the Greeks 3000 years ago were just as advanced as we are. What are the barriers that keep people from reaching anywhere near their real potential? The answer to that can be found in another question, and that's this: "Which is the most universal human characteristic: Fear or laziness?"
— philosophy professor Louis MacKey

blazingstar wrote:

aspiesavant wrote:

The (at least partially) hereditary nature of intelligence is controversial the same way evolution is controversial.

It's a political controversy rather than a scientific controversy.

per your request.

The point I was trying to make there, is that the science is settled on IQ and various personality traits being at least partially hereditary. There's pretty much a consensus here. Scientists disagree not on whether they are hereditary but how much of it is hereditary.

Nevertheless, it is true that there remain people who argue that IQ and many personality traits are determined purely by environment. However, this controversy is driven purely by political agendas, not by scientific arguments. The whole argument for purely environmental causes is little more than wishful thinking & propaganda.

Spectral Aurtist
Snowy Owl

Joined: 7 Feb 2016
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 153
Location: Helltopia

06 Jul 2018, 5:53 am

Why don't you start a fresh topic about Eugenics?

The epithet of this one is that it's sensationalist and alarmist like so many a deliberately mis-contextualized amateur scientific blog. I live in the Netherlands, they're not running around Euthanizing people and there's no Eugenics going on here at least for the moment. the topic's title is "New waves of Eugenics in the Netherlands" not "the importance of eugenics".

If you think Eugenics merits some discussion,it's yet to be decided whether the members of the forum agree ; But if it's worthy I am sure it will show itself to be so and if it's not then it it will drop away I would think. I say ...put it to test or put it to rest.

Page 3 of 5 [ 77 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next

Jump to:

New waves of Eugenics in the Netherlands Post Reply New Topic

New waves of Eugenics in the Netherlands