For the unaware eugenics is: "a set of beliefs and practices that aims at improving the genetic quality of the human population.[4][5] It is a social philosophy advocating the improvement of human genetic traits through the promotion of higher rates of sexual reproduction for people with desired traits (positive eugenics), or reduced rates of sexual reproduction and sterilization of people with less-desired or undesired traits (negative eugenics), or both."

Now I know eugenics has gotten a bad rep thanks to those wacky Nazis, but improving the gene pool is a legitimate method for improving the overall quality of the human race, and the best part is we don't have to commit genocide to do it!

See, as it turns out, intelligence is mostly determined by genetics. How smart you and your kids are going to be is heavily influenced by the family you're stuck with. All we really need to do to vastly increase the average IQ of the human race is make an IQ test mandatory for everyone at the age of 17 or so(girls brains finish developing around 15 or so but boys take a bit longer as male brains are about 10% bigger) and chemically sterilize anyone fails to score a certain percentage.

Now unfortunately, this will bleed into a bit of a race issue. As black people and Mexicans tend to have lower IQ's on average, and Asians tend to be higher. Thus we'll end up with fewer of some races and more of another, but hey, it isn't our fault that nature has caused genetic racial advantages.

What are your thoughts on serializing the stupid for the benefit of humanity?

oh my..
i think you may have just insulted somewhere around 70% of the population on earth.
Is this supposed to help population control too?
this thread is sorely mistitled. it should be "DON'T support eugenics" because you just listed half the reasons why no one agrees with you.
/sage

>>1 You do know and realize that really intellectual smart people usually have autistic kids right?

Just because someone doesn't have a certain level of intelligence dose not mean that they should become a second class citizen because of it that's what you are saying, hell they could be really go at art, sports, ect and you want to deny the future generation of diverse genetics.

Unless you are going to go down the road of genetic engineering which would be faster, but at the moment we only know what less then half of the human NDA actually does so even that's a crap shoot at best right now.

>>2 agreed

/sage

>>2 Eugenics does indeed constitute the dying out of the inferior parts of the human race, yes. However, I see no reason why humanity should be denied lasting improvement for the sake of some misguided compassion for the stupid. Can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs, and those eggs are dumb people.

>>3 Yes, having low intelligence devalues you as a person. Low IQ is directly linked to poor critical thinking and reasoning skills, and increased likelihood of criminality, poverty, and just generally leading a crappy life. Stupid people also screw things up for normal people.

If your argument is that stupid people can have genetic advantages elsewhere, such as athletics or the arts, so what? Our wonderful, advanced brains are the reason the human race is the dominate species on the planet. The higher the average IQ of the human population is, the better off the species will inevitably be. It doesn't really matter if we take a hit to our physical abilities, they're not what allow us to take this planet by the reins, and art is inherently worthless.

Finally, while there are studies on parents with high intelligence and autistic children, researchers maintain that adequate data for this theory does not yet exist.

>>4 "having low intelligence devalues you as a person."

Cool, then fuck you, you're worthless.

I don't know what to say right now... Human dignity shall be inviolable. Ever heard of that?

As for other qualities... . Art exists to make people aware of certain circumstances. It's a way of expressing something and inspiring people. It's an universal language. Eugenics shouldn't be supported for pretty much every reason written down on top this thread and because it's a kick in the teeth for what many people fought for over the past decades. Diversity in Human beings, fostering the strengths of every Person and forming some kind of unity where no one is more or less worth regarding of their race, or whatever. There is more to a human being than its IQ. Couldn’t agree more with what FindMuck just said.

oh wait now I remember what else I wanted to say!

/sage this so it gets permsaged... preferably soon.

>>5 Different world view =/= low IQ

>>6 Your statement's kind of a jumbled mess, so I'll do the best I can to address your points.

How does eugenics violate dignity? Not everyone subscribes to your definition of dignity. Why is dignity good?

It's not like art and culture will stop existing(though inferior cultures will die out) they're just much less important.

You say eugenics shouldn't be supported for the reasons listed, but none of the reasons listed have disproved the value of eugenics. They've only made sentimental clams based on pure emotion. Improving the gene pool via selective breeding is good for humanity as a whole. Yes, some will suffer, but oh well. That's just how it goes.

Who specifically fought for what? Give me specific people and ideologies, and then explain to me why these ideologies are worth a damn. Then tell me how not violating them is preferable to raising the average IQ of the human race.

People are not equal and diversity is bad. It breeds conflict, destroys community cohesion, and leads to identity politics. By fighting for diversity, you destroy unity.

Stupid people are needed to handle the low-end jobs in society. If everyone has the same high quality of intelligence and capacity for learning and improvement, there is no reason for them to pursue the masses of grunt-work jobs that do not require the use of intellect (and don't commonly align with anyone's passions).

This is probably why the education in large first-world countries is as shitty as it is -- to ensure large, intelligent populaces don't realize their further opportunities in times where grunt work is needed more. Success "stories" are outliers to a public education that always sets its sights on average, or below average.

I wanted this thread to die, so I left it alone. I guess I knew it wouldn't work.

>>5 this

>>7 Your IQ doesn't equate to your worth as a human being, and having a high IQ doesn't make you special. Your lack of empathy or compassion does, however, make you an asshole.

I don't think that it's essential for humanity to consider eugenics right now. The current 'socially accepted' world view is fairly liberal, and this is not a problem. As of right now, difference is seen as being okay. It's not considered okay to think that difference is bad. By social standards, eugenics is not an idea that would ever take off. In this day and age.

I do not support eugenics, because I'm a person that generally believes in what the majority believes in. Perhaps it will one day be respected as an idea in a future where society values unity instead of diversity. But for now it's not okay, and the world is not messed up enough to where it needs to be okay, and I hope I will not live to see it come to that point.

Anywho those are my two cents. It's a fairly controversial topic. I'm still gonna /sage though.

Learnt artificial selection in bio today.

Learnt that it was a slow process, and probably isn't the best idea when considering the survival of a species.

'Eugenics'

Also, the irony. OP and almost everyone here would probably be on the sterilized side.

>>7 Being a goddamned mother fucking retard who wouldn't see how much of a problem this would cause =\= low IQ

>>11 Should note, last bit was sarcasm, for those who are slightly mentally retarded.

Now I'll try to explain what dignity in that context means since I didn't give a proper explanation before, a certain lack of understanding of the meaning of dignity exists.

"Human dignity shall be inviolable". A quote which is also the the first article in the Constitution of Germany. Dignity: Value, refinement, ethical and moral self-legislation and/or the position you have when doing a job. Human Dignity: Inner attitude towards certain topics defined by your own awareness and worth about yourself/others and sticking to it. Being "real" as a Human and acting in a dignifying manner if you want to call it that. Overall it could be described as self-perception and also the way you present yourself in society. Anyone who acts with dignity deserves being dignified and being treated as an equal. So in a way you could also say "Human dignity is vulnerable; it has to be protected, enabled and respected". The government, educational facilities an every human has to do this. It's the job of people to teach and live important values, if you want to call it that, to show it to others and the next generation.

By eugenics we divide society into two classes. Those with the accepted IQ and those with an IQ below a certain number. So eugenics devalues people by one criteria. There are many intelligent people who have psychopathic tendencies and people with a low IQ but who value morals and influence others in a positive way. Deciding who is a worthy human and who is not solely by the IQ is generalizing and simply impossible. IQ test measures how well you do on IQ tests, not much more and not much less. A good score just tells you that you can answer more small problems faster so it is kind of an aptitude test that shows a little bit of your intelligence but not what you are capable of as a human being in general.

Now a view people with a, from my point of view, good ideologies:
Eleanor Roosevelt, Nelson Mandela, Cesar Chavez and Abbe Pierre just to name a view that have made an impact. They've fought for equal rights among people with different skin colors, apathy and generally a bigger acceptance among different people which reduced the conflicts between people from different backgrounds, races and financial standards. If those get jeopardized or even complete sacrificed you could very well break of a huge civil war an every country where "different" people live.

If you fight for a Unity where diversity gets pushed down and is forbidden you breed hate and not only among the ones with a low IQ but also among some people with an high IQ because there is more to a human being than just it's IQ and they've probably realize this. Unity like that exists only on the surface, not when you dig deeper into the subject.

/sage

I can hear your neo-Nazi heart beating: "As black people and Mexicans tend to have lower IQ's on average, and Asians tend to be higher, we'll end up with fewer of some races and more of another, but hey, it isn't OUR fault that nature has caused genetic racial advantages."

Let me tell you: people are equal. Don't ever insult me again by saying one race has an advantage over another. In fact, lets abolish the word race! For every one black person that you show me who's 'stupid', I'll show you a white person, an Asian person, and whatever other ethnicity you'd like. Neil deGrasse Tyson. Look him up. Luis Walter Alvarez. Look him up. Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar. Look him up. Your claims of stupid people from one ethnicity and smart people from another angers me so much that I can't put it into words.

/Sage it into oblivion

>>8 This is a good point. Grunts are indeed needed. However, stupid people make bad grunts, people of average IQ actually do a much better job. Eugenics will be a slow process, and it's best to slowly raise the bar in increments over generations. This would give us plenty of time to develop solutions, and would prevent several other problems from occurring if we moved to fast.

For instance, the smartest people on the planet are mostly men.(Interestingly, men also make up the majority of stupid people too) If we set the desired IQ for breeding too high, we'd run into a severe shortage of women. Not to mention that the majority of the human race would fall into the inferior category. No, we start with the bar at an average level(well, average relative to some races anyway) and slowly raise it. An average IQ of 90 forms the threshold for a technological economy, so we'll start there.

>>9 A high IQ does make you better than people with a low IQ, yes.

>>10 " I'm a person that generally believes in what the majority believes in."

You're a sheep. I won't try to help those who don't think for themselves.

>>11 It will indeed be a slow and unpleasant process. However it's one I sincerely believe to be necessary if the human race is ever going to improve. There will be problems, but I'm optimistic that as a species, or rather, with competent people behind the wheel properly directing the species, we'll overcome those problems.

I realize one wants to equate people with views he or she disagrees with, as stupid, but often times it's simply feelings getting in the way of rational thought.

>>13 I don't feel that this concept of dignity is important, and the ideologies you mentioned are based on the belief that all people are equal and diversity is good, this is false.

You claim many of the mentally feeble have worth because they are righteous, and value right and wrong. Where as many intelligent people lack this supposed moral compass, and have what you claim to be "psychotic tenancies". You've just described slave morality, which is bad. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZ1Nz-w58Yk Here's a video, but I'll talk more about master and slave morality at the end of this post. Slave morality seems to be a recurring problem in the value systems of people replying to this thread, so it's best we touch on it.

War always comes as a result of major change, it's to be expected.

>>14 https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/027597510X/vdare This book will provide you with proof.

http://library.flawlesslogic.com/iq.htm This is an excellent article.

As for Mexicans, immigrants do tend to have an increase in their average IQ's over generations due to being in a better environment. However, Mexican IQ has stagnated and it's uncertain if it's genetic or they simply need more time to adjust. http://reason.com/archives/2013/05/17/are-hispanics-too-stupid-to-become-ameri

I encourage you to do your own research, just beware of conformation bias.

Now then, on the topic of master and slave morality, I'll try to keep it simple and abridged. Master morality is a value system that emerges from the self as a starting point. What is good refers to what is good for the master, and what the master desires. What is bad refers to what the master deems to be undesirable. Evil does not exist in master morality, the opposite of good is simple what is best avoided. Master morality is flexible as it depends on the master.

Slave morality on the other hand is born out of resentment for the master, and the limitations of the slave. The master is an absolute to the slave, thus a clear evil exists, and to the slave, good is the opposite of that evil. The slave resents power, thus being humble and meek are valued. The slave resents freedom, thus absolute rights and wrongs are created. ect. Christianity, and other belief systems where you pledge obedience to a doctrine are examples of slave morality.

Master morality is the ideal value system as it allows for self actualization and personal freedom. Slave morality, which many of you seem to practice, is inferior, as it is born of resentment towards what is perceived as evil and prevents self actualization.

I'd like you all to take a moment to give your value system a serious examination and discover how seriously narrow minded and constraining it is.

>>15 Those of low intelligence are wonderful at simple jobs. That's the whole point -- they're better at it. Even the mentally handicapped have some jobs that they work better than others.

IQ alone does not determine whether one is "better" in general. That argument reminds me of those who try to say a more complicated software is better for every job. If the software has so many libraries that it takes several minutes to boot up, though, it's inefficient for reading a simple file.

In addition, having a lower IQ does not restrict you from advancing society. There are many "dumb" artists and programmers who are not traditionally intelligent but have contributed wonderful source material for others to work with, as they confronted these problems from angles others did not. That is one of the main reasons people support diversity and the merging of cultures -- the collection of knowledge and viewpoints that make extreme advancements possible.

And on the note of race, be aware that IQ is not purely genetic. It is also affected by the environment one is raised in, early nutrition / emotional health, the concepts one is introduced to, and how those concepts are introduced. Increasing the educational quality of life for minorities is an alternative that can have a significantly positive impact on the average their IQ as a whole.

No specific genes have been identified in any particular race that determine the potential of IQ relevant to it. We do know that it is related to genetic (to a significantly lesser degree than, say, weight is), but we do not know if environmental factors affecting our ability to reach our full genetic potential of IQ today affects the genetic makeup of our children tomorrow on any reasonably sized time scale.

>>16
of their IQ*
related to genetics*

According to your point of view that makes me a worthless person that has no right to live because i'm not "good" for our race. Not like i have certain talents in other stuff. Its not like i have emotions or anything right?

You're an asshole for saying people with low IQ aren't valuable. How would you feel if someone said you're worthless and that you're bringing down the entire race.

/Sage

>>16 Nah, I'm confidant we can replace most grunt jobs with robots. Making idiot grunts unnecessary. Think of it as a second sort of industrial revolution. Where in the jobs that require the dumb become mostly automated, needing only a few intelligent people to supervise.

IQ does indeed determine intellectual superiority. While many parallels can be drawn between a human brain and a computer, it's an unequal comparison.

Diversity is still bad, reasons for which I've already stated.

The contributions of the few do not justify the failures of the many. Even if some stupid people have made worthwhile contributions(which I remain unconvinced of, and would appreciate it if you would give me specific people) that's no reason to not raise the average IQ of the human race. No matter how you look at it, more intelligent people can only be good.

I am indeed aware that environmental factors influence IQ. I talked about it briefly when I discussed the lower average IQ of Hispanics. We can already control the environmental factors, now we just need to control the genetic ones.

To give an example of racial genetic advantages: Regardless of their environment, black people still have low IQ's, which is indicative of a genetic component. And yes, IQ, while not perfect, is still an adequate measurement of intelligence.

>>18 If you do indeed have a low IQ then yes, you're inferior and it would be best for humanity as a whole if you were replaced with someone smarter. No one has a "right" to live.

I've already been called worthless in this thread. I got over it because 1.) I have thick skin, and 2.) it's not true according to the very logic both I, and by extension, the person who said it are using.

If I'm going to be entirely honest, I don't understand why you're garnering support for a project that would be quite impossible in this day and age, considering that it's overturning the morals and ethics most people in this world live by, not to mention opposition from countries and governments. Trying to bring in an inherently flawed, dystopian society like the one you're suggesting is absolutely ridiculous and not feasible. This is without even considering the fact that you're purely thinking in terms of one criteria, namely a person's IQ level, while simultaneously blindly negating all other factors that make up an individual both genetically and due to their circumstances and environment. You say that you can already control the environment, but as that isn't the same story worldwide, I would suggest you let go of your wild ideas about changing the very fabric of human society and its values and all that we stand for and have achieved, and focus on first giving everyone the most suitable environment required for them to flourish and be beneficial to society, which I assure you is a much more short-term and humane course of action than the one you've suggested for the purpose of furthering humanity.
Also... I read terms like how diversity or unity or whatever is bad or wrong. I'd just like to say that what we ought to aspire for is "unity within diversity", namely accepting and exploiting our differences to work towards a common good.
/Sage

>>20 Oh, you're absolutely right about this never happening, there's just no way it ever could. This was nothing more than a bit of hypothetical fun about implementing an IQ based eugenics breeding system. There's no way this would ever happen on a scale large enough to achieve the desired effect.

I still think it's the best method for improving the quality of the human race. Though it's unfortunately not a viable option. After all, if the majority were capable of understanding that eugenics is good, we wouldn't need eugenics.

You're an inconsiderate fuck, end of story. If anyone deserves to be chemically sterilized, it's you.

I understand that you meant it to be a bit of hypothetical fun, but I do hope you realize that the ideas you put across are too controversial for a global platform such as this site, and the way you put them across with little or no regard for basic human decency have, as you have probably already seen, offended quite a large number of people and shocked others. If the previous warnings didn't work, I would like to personally ask you to refrain from posting threads like this that spark disgust and discomfort.
Thank you.
/sage

"fun about implementing an IQ based eugenics breeding system", well what an amount of fun we had!

Have you wondered why eugenics got a "bad rep thanks to those whacky nazis"? the nazis were not responsible of the idea of eugenics or its reputation. in fact, eugenics were fancied upon some philosophers quite some time after and before nazi-reign, but got debunked for reasons most posters here have stated before.
german national socialists were known for having a whole set of philosophical talking points which "justified" their wrongdoing. mainly arguments by nietzsche, which were also used by american confederates to justify slavery. these arguments were taken ad absurdum and often vastly out of context, nietzsche wasn't actually a supremacist.
many argue the worst thing about german nazis was not the holocaust or the war itself, but the cold and calculating effectiveness they brought to it. they were filing deportation lists and stamping death sentences on an everyday basis and noone even flinched while doing so. it was business as usual to improve the quality of the human race. they were exercising a coldness of the likes you also have shown in this thread

point is: you really have to ask yourself: if you are ready to straight up say to an equal member of this forum, that he is inferior and should be replaced and to write down sentences like "Diversity is bad" and "No one has a right to live", don't you actually stand a LOT closer to fascist ideology than you thought? The things you have written here are completely antithetic to every bit of ethical and political progress made in the last 80 years. eugenics does not have a bad rep, it actually is bad.

no offense, but go see a doctor, this might be a medical condition. have you ever felt empathy for someone?

on another note: IQ is a very bad indicator for intelligence. IQ tests are usually just mathematical problems, you can study for them and you can practice them to get better results. actual intelligence cannot be linked to just a number. the sheer diversity (!) of intellectual fields is the best indicator for that. there are people who are good at math and there are people who are good in speaking. even interdisciplinary there are a lot of differences, i know some phycisits who are very good in differential geometrics but just suck in optics. and vice versa. there is a multitude of people out there all with different kind of skills and talents, diversity and specialization may well be the foundation of modern society. a number cannot attribute the worth of a human

>>22 You're a rather easily triggered fellow, eh? Might do you some good to develop thicker skin. If someone has a view that clashes with your value system, you have a rational discussion about it. You don't go full retard. You never go full retard.

>>23 I decline your request. The point of this thread was not to start a fire, I was simply sharing my opinion. I will neither censor my views nor withhold them simply because they might hurt someones feelings. That PC, hypersensitive nonsense disgusts me, but I'm not going ask that you stop. In regards to "basic human decency", I think I've been very civil in my interactions here.If however you mean that my views violate human "rights" then I hate to tell you, but people don't have "rights". We have privileges extended to us by those in power. Privileges that are relative and can be taken from you at any time. They're nothing sacred.

Unrelated; what does sage mean in the context of this site, and why is there a box for it to click?

>>24 None of the statements in this thread have "debunked" anything. They've only made appeals to emotion. The cold efficiency of the Nazi's is the one admirable thing about them.

"Fascists believe that liberal democracy is obsolete, and they regard the complete mobilization of society under a totalitarian one-party state as necessary to prepare a nation for armed conflict and to respond effectively to economic difficulties. Such a state is led by a strong leader—such as a dictator and a martial government composed of the members of the governing fascist party—to forge national unity and maintain a stable and orderly society. Fascism rejects assertions that violence is automatically negative in nature, and views political violence, war, and imperialism as means that can achieve national rejuvenation. Fascists advocate a mixed economy, with the principal goal of achieving autarky through protectionist and interventionist economic policies."

Yeah, I agree with pretty much all of that. Liberal ideals are inherently flawed and based on decadence. They all eventually crumble underneath the weight of reality. I'm a fascist.

I do have the emotion empathy, yes. There are people in my life I care for, who's pain I can understand and share. I just value cold rationality over all else.

IQ is an excellent indicator of intelligence and is more than just math problems. It tests reasoning, spacial awareness, memory, and loads of other fun stuff that pertains to intelligence. It's not a perfect measurement, and anomalies always slip through the cracks, but it's an adequate system.

Of course you can determine a persons value based on weather or not they meet certain criteria. If the criteria is a number, you can totally assign a persons worth to a number.

>>25 No. Vou haven't come off as particularly agreeable or very inviting in regards to actual discourse. I don't doubt you were legitimately interested in discussing this, but the smugness and condescension in the way you've expressed yourself here was guaranteed to piss a lot of people off, and I think you knew this when you posted. Maybe next time you should exercise some tact if you actually want to illicit any kind of meaningful response from people.

I mean, I don't doubt that you wanted to spark something of an intellectual discussion here, but your attitude just screams "edgy teenager" to me.

Anyway, ticking the sage box prevents a thread from being bumped to the top of the page after posting. Generally useful when you want to make a low key post for whatever reason.

>>27 I said I'd been civil, as in polite and courteous. That has nothing to do with being agreeable. I think you're all wrong, so of course I'm not anymore agreeable than the rest of you. People may have taken offense with the subject matter, but my interactions have been free of insults and poor attitude(though I did recently make a "full retard" joke as a euphemism for overreacting).

Any sort of smugness or "edgy teenager" vibe you're getting seems like your problem. I've stated my opinions and arguments in the simplest form I could, and have not attacked anyone. What more can you seriously ask for?

>>28 I'm pretty sure you're a bit of a sociopath. I don't understand the way you think, and to me, a dude who pretty much believes that everyone is equally worthless, your ideas come off as big-headed and arrogant. A high IQ doesn't make you better than anyone, it just makes you smarter than most people. In any case, everyone has a different idea of what the best way to live is, and eugenics is just a way of imposing some asshole's will and worldview onto other people - it's oppression on a genetic level. You have no right to judge anyone else's worth as a person.

But yeah, you don't believe in equality, human dignity, and although you say you do feel empathy I'd guess it's more rooted in your own personal attachment to some people than any legitimate care for their feelings. If you can't be reasoned with on an emotional or moral level, then there's no convincing you of anything, making this discussion pointless.

I just believe if you're really interested in bettering humanity, castrate yourself. All of your statements assume you don't fall into the same category of people you're trying to eliminate, and show absolutely zero humility or consideration toward others. Don't expect others to indulge your opinion, because you've been utterly fucking shameless.

If there's anything that makes someone less valuable as a human, It's psychopathic ideologies like yours.

>>29 I'm not a sociopath, I operate on master morality and logic. Master morality dictates that good is whats is good for the master. Logic dictates that reason and objective facts take priority over emotion.

I suppose everyone is technically equally worthless, as life has no inherent meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value. However, value in this case is relative, and determined by comparison to our fellow man.

Being more intelligent than someone does make you better than them, yes.

Eugenics is not "a way of imposing some asshole's will and worldview onto other people - it's oppression on a genetic level.", it's selecting the best genes and breeding humans accordingly. It's improvement, not oppression. And as I've established, no one has a "right" to anything.

I believe in dignity, I just think it's of lesser importance.

All of us care most about our personal attachments. I guess if you decide to care about random people you don't know as much as your friends and family, and then allow that random compassion to dictate your world view and belief system, then that's a choice you've made.

No, you can't appeal to me with emotion and slave morality. You have to use logic. That doesn't make me a sociopath, it makes me someone who can think objectively and make decisions based on critical thinking.

>>30 I do not fall into the category of people I'm trying to eliminate. Of course I'm shameless, I have nothing to be ashamed of. I've said nothing wrong. Why would I show humility and consideration towards people that are dragging down humanity?

I don't really expect people with flawed value systems and low intelligence(Not that I'm necessarily claiming anyone here falls into the latter category. Though several people have outright admitted that they do) to agree with me.

>>32 *facepalm*
Humanity as a whole should never be considered a thing.
Ever.

Our species is not a hive mind.
We work for ourselves, it's literally in our genes.

There's actually no point in increasing whatever properties you said we should breed.

If you actually had the power to make this reality, expect the majority of people to try and kill you.

Ahh well, I tried xD looks like the thread is still here haha.
I still disagree with you about how you think our IQ is what is the most essential feature of a human being. There's so much more the human brain and body is capable of, and however much you value the intelligence alone in your cold rational way, there are so many other aspects that are beneficial to society, which you have completely neglected, by saying that they are born of emotions, which, by the way, exist for a reason, which is so that we don't lose our respect for ourselves and our surroundings in pursuit of knowledge. The basic human rights, duties, laws, morals, ethics and dignity are of course things that we bestow upon ourselves so that we aren't classified as livestock. They don't exist, we make them exist so as to keep us sane and not lose ourselves to either wild emotions or cold logic and function as a society. Putting down or raising up a set of people because of their "genetic affinity" towards a specific factor completely goes against those values which are what keeps us sane. Your "cold logic and rationality" is demeaning human beings as an existence based on a single factor, and fantasising about an entire functional society based on that one factor while almost blindly disregarding everything else.
To be completely honest, the sort of utopia you're talking about where human beings are a super-smart species ruling over everything else while systematically oppressing the people you've dubbed "stupid" is more dystopian than utopian and the sooner you realise that, the better. It is flawed and frankly ridiculous to hinge the whole of this diverse humanity and all of its future achievements on a single factor, namely the IQ test. It's even more laughable that you think a boring society like that could flourish without a single misstep or mishap. The IQ of a person, as has been mentioned before, only makes a person smarter and not necessarily more beneficial to society in general. Such a society is inherently flawed and recklessly heading towards its own ruin, for all that it's ruled by "cold rationality".
Like I said before, you'd be better off trying to help humanity by giving each unique individual their own niche environment to reach their fullest potential. A person is more than their IQ. We're all primarily weak and worthless and that's why we work and fight to rightfully earn our place in society. Instead of your "improvement" through genetic oppression (because however you phrase it, that's what it sounds like, mate), improving policies to properly provide opportunities and challenges for people who fall out of the norm would be a better option.
Or maybe write a fiction novel if you're trying to envision how your wild fantasies would survive as reality. I'd love to read it. But I wouldn't voraciously advocate it, as you seem to be doing.
/sage

I didn't think the reply would end up this lono when I typed it out... whoops.

TL;DR Being smart doesn't make you a decent person.

I'm really struggling to believe someone can be so preachy, biased, illogical, and nonobjective about a non-religious topic--and so unaware of being thus--without trolling.

>>19 The point is that we cannot isolate the genetic factors until we handle the social ones. At present, we lack the technological capacity to fully comprehend which genes actually impact intelligence. Judging IQ by races--knowing the huge impact environmental factors have on IQ and the environments these races are in--is thus a poor way of studying the circumstances. You're basing your opinion on unreliable data.

There are ways to test this, even in today's disconnected society, but like reliable testing of the existence of biological gender roles, it would be immoral. (Perfect testing requires the contained, supervised development of various children from birth to youth to rule out the major social variables that impact them in today's society.)

I still disagree that diversity is wrong. The "technology" you say you'll be relying on to replace grunt work was developed during this time of incredible diversity. This is not a coincidence. Conflict breeds advancement (and always has). Racism and capitalism and war are combining with all these cultures like a ripe fertilizer for technology and creativity and it's amazing.

If you think you're going to get that kind of progress in some contained utopian society of white-asians following orders under a fascist dictatorship, you may be delusional, or at least unfamiliar with history.

>>33 "Humanity as a whole should never be considered a thing.
Ever." I've no desire to further argue semantics. It's going nowhere.

We are indeed a collective of individuals. Selfish, selfish individuals.

"There's actually no point in increasing whatever properties you said we should breed." Nonsense.

I would fully expect people to try and kill me if I attempted to implement this, yes.

>>34 "you'd be better off trying to help humanity by giving each unique individual their own niche environment to reach their fullest potential."

I really like that idea, actually.

"Your "cold logic and rationality" is demeaning human beings as an existence based on a single factor, and fantasising about an entire functional society based on that one factor while almost blindly disregarding everything else."

I'm not adverse to incorporating other genetic factors into the criteria. I do however believe that intelligence should be valued first and foremost, and take priority. Also, how can I demean that which I feel to have little to no value, i.e. the mentally feeble?

Let's take a bit to talk about culture. "Culture emerges in only one circumstance and serves only one purpose. When a group of people face the same adversity at the same time, they do better if they deal with it together. A people’s collective solutions to adversity is their culture. If there’s a limited supply of food, we’ll get used to the same fruits and meats and use the same cooking techniques. If we live in the same climate and around the same building materials, we’ll learn to build dwellings together. If we experience the same weather and live near cotton plants, we’ll weave similar clothing. If we’re confused by the same astronomical phenomenon or killed by the same unknown disease, we’ll come up with myths together."

Therefore, through the adversity of the outcry against eugenics(I know I'm supposed to capitalize proper nouns, I just think it's cute with a little e) we would develop a new culture.

Using cold logic in decision making does not strip the joy and creativity out of you.

The book idea's a good one. Would make a great thought experiment.

>>36 What qualifies as a decent person is relevant and subjective.

In any case, defending this hypothetical eugenics movement has been a fun mental exercise. However, I feel like we're retreading the same water. Ethics violations and such. I've learned a few things and have gotten a few good suggestions. I've also gotten a feel for this websites user base.

I'd like to thank everyone who replied. Feel free to continue posting in this thread or simply let it die out. In either case I will not longer be responding to comments posted here.

Have a nice wheeeeeeeeeeee!

^ RIP.

Anyway.
I'm cool with having a thread on eugenics, but I'd rather it be an open discussion than somebody's personal soapbox. It's up to you guys if you wanna make a proper debate thread for Main, though.

I think this is a Main-Worthy thread..