Comments on: Eugenics and You

By: TheStink

TheStink — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 07:02:46 +0000

Robert Klark Graham’s Repository for Germinal Choice reminded me of the story ‘My Uncle Oswald’ which was published by Roald Dahl in 1979. Dahl explores the subject in a comedic light and is more focused on the business of setting up and managing such a scheme rather than the exploration of its effects. Not a bad book though… Defiantly an interesting topic and a very enjoyable article.

By: GreenGestalt

GreenGestalt — Fri, 02 Dec 2011 06:19:32 +0000

Way I see it we need eugenics. Yes, in the past it was used to justify crude racism and class-ism, and the genocides waged in its name frightening. But, man faces that the Inferior do produce more than the superior and as civilization protects them from both weakness of body and weakness of mind their weaknesses will be passed on from one generation to the next till man himself is weakened.

You’ve pointed out at the end of this article how even JEWISH groups now try to do this, themselves both the most victim of “Eugenics” and due to a long period of the same culture most in need of it. Of course since it’s such a hot button issue (especially to them) they fight hardest against it.

I think Genetic Engineering could be the solution. That way the “Inferiors” could be eliminated with a simple shot, so say vision problems caused by genetics corrected, etc. That way we’d have the results of a long genetic purge but without anyone being “Hitler”. Also, we’d not need to be all blonde eyed aryans either, matter of fact look at the guys body modding to look like snakes and tigers…we’d have “Voluntary Chimeras” running around.

By: johnbo

johnbo — Sat, 04 Jun 2011 08:00:30 +0000

“…there was never quite enough sperm on hand, and the founder was forced to spend much of his time seeking brilliant men to come to his aid.”

It seems almost sinful, writing such a clever and ribald pun.

By: Cloudflare7

Cloudflare7 — Thu, 29 Apr 2010 08:12:30 +0000

I’m torn… On the one hand, I recognize that this we ARE undoubtedly interrupting natural selection in the worst way, e.g. diabetics. On the other, I’m wary of assuming our judgement is best in this situation. Think modern dog breeds; many have respiratory, cardiovascular and other problems due entirely to our bad genetic selection. What we think is “cute” may not be useful, or may inadvertently be harmful. Also, my mother was paranoid-schizophrenic…. I might be mildy crazy, but I’m more useful than most. It may be the narcissist in me, but I tend to think most if not all of our greatest minds were at best “eccentric” and at worst insane.

By: ronin

ronin — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 11:05:31 +0000

In all the centuries since humans have been breeding canines from wolves have we once created an overall life form superior in all aspects to said wolf? No, but we have created specialized life forms that fit into unique sub sections, and artificial classifications. Therefore selectively breeding human beings will create sub humans who will be subservient to the “superior” humans. Let nature take its course imbeciles! A researcher trying to find a cure for Muscular Dystrophy came across a startling revelation. Human beings have a genetic deficiency compared to our ape cousins in growing jaw muscles. Why is this important? Because it was the catalyst to support brain growth. The skull is genetic prime real-estate. You either invest in jaw muscle, or have a weaker jaw, but a larger expansion for brain capacity. We start messing with human genetics or think we know better as regards to selective breeding what are we going to miss out on or plain discount as an “undesirable” trait. In conclusion eugenicist talk is self destructive no matter how you look at it.

By: Sicklet

Sicklet — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 21:34:06 +0000

I stick to the phrase “nobody’s perfect.” We bump into big issues when we try to purebreed dogs. When we keep breeding for specific traits, like good hips, we end up bringing out unwanted ones, like tendency to bloat. When we breed for a good build build we get a cruddy personality. What makes us think we’re going to do better on ourselves? We’re going to have ultra hot idiots and very sickly geniuses.. wait. Never mind.

Anyways have pleeenty of orphans, hobos, and traffic jams as it is with everyone from the age of 10 to 50 popping out babies and deciding it was a bad plan after the fact. Eugenics is kind of silly to worry about when overpopulation is much more glaring.

Awesome article.

By: Mirage_GSM

Mirage_GSM — Tue, 19 May 2009 15:42:42 +0000

[quote]One major problem with “positive” eugenics can be summed up in a simple question: What makes one “better” than another, and who decides that?[/quote]
Several people have used these phrases correctly in their comments, but I believe nobody has yet explained them.
“Positive” and “negative” eugenics has nothing to do with an evaluation of moral standards or one being better than the other.
Posivitve eugenics simply means encouraging the reproduction of people with desirable traits, while negative eugenics is discouraging the reproduction of people with undesirable traits.

[quote]…just like the Irish were bred to hold their liquor! [/quote]
That’s not genetics – just lifelong training ;-)

By: Mr Studworthy

Mr Studworthy — Sun, 05 Apr 2009 11:33:04 +0000

Brilliant article. I recently read an article from England that discussed the phenomenon of the ‘unemployed coal miners’. These are families from Manchester and other areas that live on welfare (dole) as they are unemployed coal miners. Thing is it was actually their great grandfathers who lost their jobs when the unions went on strike at the turn of the century. Their sons never worked but ‘signed on’ for the dole, and every generation since, all stating that they are unemployed coal miners. Perhaps cut of their welfare rather than their jewels may be an answer to this. Either way it does smack of regression / de-evolution. As politically incorrect as it may be, there is probably some truth to the propositions put forward by the pundits of eugenics. FWIW

By: bizso

bizso — Sun, 08 Feb 2009 10:09:29 +0000

#186-187
Is this for real?

By: bizso

bizso — Sun, 08 Feb 2009 10:01:33 +0000

Hi, I’m from Europe, not UK.
[quote]why should mothers who are obviously never going to produce worthwhile (note:- worthwhile, not necessarily super-intelligent!) offspring[/quote]
According to behavioural psychology, a child’s future life is considerbly shaped by the enviroment he is brought up in. Thus, you can’t presume that his fate is entirely predetermined by his genes. He might even accomplish great things provided that he receives the right inputs throughout his life.
Bottom line is this subject is far from black and white. DNA as well as society have much influence on one’s life. It’s not 100% this or 100% that…
great site, btw!