Posts Tagged ‘eugenics’

According to the Merriam-Webster’s English dictionary, the meaning of the word ‘eugenics’ is simply “a science that deals with the improvement (as by control of human mating) of hereditary qualities of a race or breed”. There exists no agenda in eugenics beyond the application of stock-breeding to humans, which means that some form of eugenics is probably compatible with all religions and cultures, indeed cultures have been practicing eugenics for thousands of years (often without a comparable term), and eugenics doesn’t prescribe a means or even in itself a definition of which traits are eugenic. Nonetheless, leaving aside value judgements out of the question as much as is possible, there is a value-neutral measure of what is eugenic – the fitness of the population, in the sense that would be understood by conservation biologists, is not a social construct.

Why, then, do eugenicists get my back up when I read them on the internet? It’s for three reasons that I can think of, which are their lack of understanding of the relevant science, they feel attracted to the famous anti-eugenic straw man of the ‘war against the weak’ and live in such an agenda-driven unreality that they can’t see eugenic programs would, if applied in the present social climate of Cultural Marxism, actually be used against themselves and their offspring.

Lets give online eugenics a reality check to see how well it stands up to scrutiny – the Spartans and the Nazis may not have valued all human lives equally but nonetheless the lives of their own people possessed value until it was demonstrated otherwise. Amazonian tribes practice infanticide to increase the fitness of the group, but it isn’t the general position – forcing a mother to kill her own baby is clearly a punishment inflicted for exceptional, inappropriate reproductive behaviour that threatens the survival of a subsistence society. When you get to pseudo-eugenicists decrying that human lives are assumed to have inherent value at all unless there’sa reason otherwise, which isn’t the belief that all human life has equal value, we’re dealing with the pathological and, if there’s an allele that predisposed them to think like that, with the dysgenic.

Much of the appeal of pseudo-eugenics is at the emotional rather than the rational level. Online eugenicists are famously outspoken in support of what are known as anti-dysgenic or negative eugenic measures, whilst they say next to nothing in support of positive eugenics. This is because poorly reasoned pseudo-eugenics is an outlet for them to vent frustration at society. There isn’t really a serious argument to consider there, just a boring and parrot-like repetition of Freakonomics-like half-truths by people unable to understand the sciences even at the most basic level. An informative irony here is that many of these people who talk about eugenics, which is related to breeding, never seem to have sex or offspring themselves. It must be very frustrating for such beta male basement dwellers, to see all those ‘cads’ out-reproducing dads whilst they’re watching porn on their computers. These people often see dominant, traditional alpha males as though they were omega thugs, one wonders why that might be.

Moving from psychology to philosophy, let us consider the following proposition as an analogy to common pseudo-eugenic thinking about social issues.

“Black people should be allowed to own guns, because black criminals mostly shoot one another, and therefore we should overlook the white victims of black gun criminals as a collateral damage of criminal blacks wiping themselves out. We should encourage blacks to own firearms (or, at the very least, tolerate the ready availability of firearms to black criminals).”

Most people would, hopefully, see the above logic as insane, especially if they are white advocates. Anyone who would argue for such a thing would be turning a blind eye to the damage being inflicted upon their own people, out of their irrational resentment towards outsiders. Yet this is precisely the thinking of people who follow the crazy Freakonomics line of argument even after the author admitted his argument was false. Even worse than gun violence, liberalised abortion particularly hollows out individuals with eugenic traits – either abortion should be very strictly regulated for the proper purposes (as it is in Iran), or access to the procedure should be forbidden at all costs. Effective modern contraception is also abused too often by those we wish to have more children.

As for the argument about single mothers (ie. regardless of race), this is quite clearly moral aggression and misplaced altruistic punishment. Regardless of intent, by downplaying the role of society as well as heredity in the life choices of individuals from a given background. Targeting entire communities for negative eugenics isn’t the same as targeting the more harmful members of those communities such as drug addicts, of course this is anti-white and offensive where the support for grassroots activism would be strongest. People who believe that perfectly healthy white children should be burned as hospital waste because it will save money for society are an undesirable artifact of a society that good people won’t wish to preserve. I don’t want to sound like a feminist here, but I’d choose honest single mothers signing on for state benefits over the genetic load of resentful basement dwellers, any time I might be forced to choose.

If we look at the strange logic of pseudo-eugenics, it commits a confusion along the lines of is and ought – their argument assumes (contra Galton, and history itself) that antinatalist measures will be taken up by those who they see as bad people, whilst those they see as good people will embrace their own way of thinking. I’m sure I don’t need to point out the error in this kind of thinking. Along the same lines they like to insist that, if the good people aren’t breeding, its because of indoctrination by feminism and related social movements which in turn, implicitly suggests that the desirable people would instantly start to behave as the pseudo-eugenicists think they should, if only they could be shown the light of pseudo-eugenics to set them free. There is no thought given to the possibility that societies might be predisposed to nonsense like feminism as a consequence of antinatalist trends. If all human behaviours are natural then tendencies that evolved as a means to control population size in the ancient past have now kicked into self-destructive overdrive because of excess affluence – Japan has a birthrate below replacement, but how many women in Japan have been exposed to feminist perspectives? Japan has however suffered from the same kind of excessive affluence disintegrating the west.

Those who support social approval for methods such as abortion that violate the organic bonds of parenthood, or amount to the pre-emptive executions of those who may not yet turn out criminal, are in outright violation of our culture and such people require their twisted values to be re-educated. Every life of one of our own people, who can at the very least contribute through inclusive fitness, really is ‘sacred’, for want of a better word, not for sentimental reasons but because we have an interest in our own survival. And this means that, when the time comes, those who have treated white offspring as trash will need to be ‘removed’ from the breeding stock.

Read Full Post »

Should we really be worried about eugenics in China, as suggested by Geoffrey Miller in a recent and very controversial Edge piece? There’s been some really interesting comments over at TOO, and a rebuttal by Peter Frost. Below, I’ve quoted extracts from Peter Frost’s refutation of Miller, and the best comments left over at TOO.

Eugenics is simply the word used for the science of stock breeding when it becomes applied to humans, and in itself doesn’t imply a controversial means such as abortion, enforced sterilisation or the euthanasia of those unfortunates deemed congenitally undesirable.

But remember that in our political climate, the first target of negative eugenics would certainly be hereditary predispositions towards ‘racism’, ‘sexism’ or ‘homophobia’ among able bodied whites.

Chinese eugenics, 2013 : What should we be worried about?
Geoffrey Miller

Seeing China plain
Peter Frost

“The author, evolutionary psychologist Geoffrey Miller, sees this eugenics program in the one-child policy, which serves “partly to curtail China’s population explosion, but also to reduce dysgenic fertility among rural peasants,” presumably because the best and the brightest migrate to the cities. Furthermore, to the extent that the best and the brightest are wealthier, they’re also better able to pay the fine for having a second child.

But Miller overlooks the weaker enforcement of this policy in rural areas. If the first-born in a farming family is a girl, they’re allowed to have another child. This might be why the fertility rate is higher in China’s rural areas, although it’s questionable whether the one-child policy has much effect at all. The fertility rate is actually higher in China (1.55) than in Taiwan (1.06) or Singapore (1.2), neither of which tries to limit family size.”

“As he notes further on, the word “eugenic” corresponds here to the Chinese term yousheng, literally “good birth.” The idea here, however, is not to create a new superhuman, but rather to maintain the current quality of the gene pool. A better English translation would be “anti-dysgenic.”

“An analogy can be made here with the current view that East Asian societies are “ultranationalistic”—a view seldom expressed a half-century ago when national sentiment was thought to be normal and even healthy. Since then, they haven’t diverged from us. We’ve diverged from them. Remember, we observe other human societies from a moving frame of reference, and this perspective creates the illusion that some societies are becoming more extreme, more religious, or more xenophobic.

In reality, China has no eugenics program. It has a population program that may have anti-dysgenic effects. Moreover, a truly anti-dysgenic program would apply to everyone, yet the one-child policy is applied only in part to peasants and not at all to non-Han Chinese.

“And then there’s immigration. In official discourse, China carefully screens its newcomers, letting in only the best and the brightest (Pieke, 2012). In reality, most immigrants enter the country illegally or on visitor visas to fill low-paying jobs…”

“The looming scarcity of labor could lead to higher wages and greater reliance on automation and robotization. Or it could lead to a growing influx of cheaply paid immigrant labor. To date, China seems to be moving down the second path…”

There has also been an influx of sub-Saharan Africans, who number an estimated 200,000 in Guangzhou alone, in addition to a growing presence in Hong Kong, Macao, Yiwu, Shanghai, and Beijing (Bodomo, 2012; Li etal., 2007). Most come to China as immigrants, and not as transients…”

“The African influx will probably continue to “happen” through irregular means. Eventually, it will be regularized as a fait accompli. Indeed, some are already arguing that such immigration must be legally recognized in order to manage it better…”

“For Geoffrey Miller, China acts with a view to the longer term, especially when deciding the future of its population, i.e., the basis of its society and economy. In contrast, the West acts “stupidly and shortsightedly.”

The real picture is less flattering to the Chinese and is, in fact, depressingly familiar. As in the West, population policy is dominated by short and medium term needs, even though today’s decisions have long-term consequences that will be hard to reverse.

Like its Western counterparts, the Chinese business community feels entitled to cheap labor and will lobby hard to preserve this “right” as the pool of homegrown labor shrinks. Although the average Chinese worker would gain from higher wages and a more capital-intensive economy, such a change would be costly for existing businesses, many of which would lose market share or go bankrupt. A tempting solution will be to keep wages low by letting in people who will work at those wages.

And keeping such people out will be diplomatically difficult. Their home countries are usually the same ones that increasingly supply China with food and valuable raw materials. Fear of economic reprisals will force policy-makers to treat this issue with kid gloves.

The Big Questions: Eugenics and Ethno-States
Kevin MacDonald

“One other comment, before we start quaking before our Han-ish masters, the one-childe policy is extremely arbitrarily enforced–one wonders just how effective any eugenics practices there might be.”

“Even if I support the eugenic idea, I find it hard to determine the right criteria for eugenic practices. Many bourgeois and aristocratic elites in Europe have been intermarrying for centuries (presumably rich and intelligent people). They brought us, e.g., philosophers and scientists promoting moral universalism.

“I am not as sure that we need massive numbers of intelligent people and I suspect that as suggested in Coming Apart by Charles Murray our brightest are intermarrying to a greater extent than in the past. The trouble is that we are having fewer children.

I would support free sterilization and make forced sterilization a condition for welfare after two children. I would also consider it for any mother who allows her child to be severely hurt or killed by anyone in the household.”

“I don’t think that overpopulation is a threat all over the world, only some Muslim and Sub-Saharan countries. Also maybe some cramped mega cities.”

“There is a strong link between psychosis and creativity. I do not think the Chinese will be able to turn in the long term a more creative and smart with this kind of eugenics.

We do have, in effect, pseudo-eugenics programs in this country (United States), but they are peculiar in that they are, like everything else here, the product of corporate interests and a consumer mentality. It’s needless to point out the irony that this depraved cultural institution functions primarily in the Jewish-created sphere of the Left. Obviously, I am alluding to the practice of sperm/egg “donation” and test-tube baby production. Faggots, queers, dykes, trannies, and all sorts of other mentally challenged individuals now have, sanctioned by Jews and their depraved cohorts, the ability to “shop” for children. Samples are not accepted from women or men who do not meet extremely high criteria of mental and physical performance. Your typical dyke or faggot — who, by virtue of the laws of nature shouldn’t even be alive, and according to virtually every system of measurement in history should be at the very least locked up in an institution receiving treatment — literally goes shopping for their child. That’s right, the Jews, homos, queers and all the filth whine incessantly about elitism, moral universalism, equality (literally a leveling), etc. then turn around and in the most elite but purile manner select seed based on specific mental and physical characteristics.

“I’m for some form of eugenics but would not necessarily emphasize IQ because there are other positive attributes that need to be retained such as strength, mental stability, resourcefulness, and others. Filtering for IQ might create a population of neurotics and sociopaths. Besides, I don’t IQ is our problem. It didn’t keep us whites from failing to protect our culture and race.

“What we need is our own state, with our own media, then a 3x child policy so we are always growing and expanding.”

“The Nazis are going to take over the world!!! The Commies are going to take over the world!!! The Japanese are going to take over the world!!! The Muslims are going to take over the world!!!

And now…the Chinese are going to breed themselves smarter than us and TAKE OVER THE WORLD!!!!

Anyone who acts like this should be ashamed of himself.

Read Full Post »

It’s a well-known cliche that knowledge itself can be neither good or bad in itself only the way people decide to use it, but outright technophobia about new reproductive technologies (aka. NRTs) must be matched with the knowledge that technologies such as whole genome sequencing will indeed be unfairly abused in lassez faire societies because of creeps such as insurance companies – and we all know the sort of people who use words like ‘Luddite’ are either paid shills or useful idiots living in a dream world where science will solve our problems.

At the mention of any kind of genetic screenings, technophobes divide into their left and right wing versions, to bash the socially acceptable target set for them by those who control both sides of the debate – the straw man figure of the evil eugenicist, who never really existed in the first place. On the left people are reminded by any notion of applied genetics of the Nazis, so they inevitably panic in case the Nordics might use mad science against Negros with an IQ of 75 – despite the fact that negative eugenics (actively removing strains from the stock) was historically an obsession of leftist figures like Shaw and Sanger during the early to mid 20th century, and the ‘eugenics equals Hitler’ equation is pretty much left-leaning hypocrites passing the buck.

At the same time the right will be concerned about one or two babies with serious defects being aborted as a result of new screening methods (although it happens anyway), whilst simultaneously ignoring that most eugenicists actually support more restrictions upon reproductive choices as the vast majority of  babies that are aborted are of decent genetic quality – that and support for both increased genetic quality and the right to life are both psychologically rooted in the sanctity/purity impulse described by Haidt (the ‘my body is a temple’ moral sentiment, related to disgust), which is why societies such as ancient Sparta and Nazi Germany followed eugenic practices whilst following anti-abortion legislation. at the opposite extreme, the modern Anglosphere has the reverse and perverse attitude that, although its a mere individual right when millions of healthy unborn children are killed merely to fit the  selfish lifestyle choices of their mothers, the unfit have the ‘reproductive right’ to beget as many children as they, well, choose to.

And whilst both irrelevant sides talk derail the discussion into their favourite non-issues, and join forces knocking down the straw men instead of going after society itself, the real danger – that existing social problems, such as the unfairness of insurance companies, will be made worse because certain people will stand to turn whole genome sequencing to their own benefit at the expense of others – is ignored and, maybe conveniently for the pig system, swept under the carpet. Do you want to live in a world like Gattaca? Fictional dystopias that reflect social trends that are just round the corner or already exist are not merely scaremongering; they reflect rational fear for the future.

More people should also remember that most people who abort children with Downs Syndrome aren’t doing it out of a conviction that eugenic practices are moral, but because they don’t want to invest the extra time and effort required in raising such a child. Its also well known that difficult child prodigies also require extra time and effort to raise, so why aren’t we asking what will happen to economically costly child prodigies in a future of routine whole genome screening? I kind of suspect that too many wealthy parents would rather have celebrity-looking designer brats with good looks, who lack the genes for unpleasantries such as racism and who won’t answer back to authority figures like mummy, daddy and their left-of-centre university professors.

Even if the means issue of abortion was avoided, some form of genetic screening would still be used somehow to eradicate all children that are congenitally costlier to raise, even though their genes might make them extremely talented sportsmen, artists or scientists. Just as genetic screenings will worsen the social problems already created by people like insurance companies, they’ll be sure to worsen certain dysgenic trends already set in by reproductive choice – the problem here is not a specific means such as abortion, but treating reproduction itself as a personal freedom and not a duty.

This raises the underlying elephant-in-the-room dilemma that giving power to the state will allow it to increase its potential for injustices, but that human individuals are simply unequipped to make the best decisions in their own genetic interests – or in those of society as a commons – when they’re in a modern environment so alien to the human species. Human brain evolution hasn’t stopped back in the Paleolithic, but it hasn’t caught up with our post-industrial societies yet, and our rates of suicide, depression, obesity and yes, elective abortion are all living proof that we must either adopt certain principles of Deep Ecological social philosophers, or accept unprecedented tyranny as a necessity.

At some point, sheer necessity will force society to turn into something like The Handsmaid’s Tale, unless moderate measures curtailing reproductive rights are set in place. Following the restrictive Iranian abortion policy for abortions will be a good start as it 100% prevents dysgenic abortions from taking place due to loopholes – which is the case in societies such as the UK. Ultimately similar measures will need to be taken with regards to all means of negative eugenics – whatever are the potentials for abuses of power and policy decision, the state as the ultimate arbiter of the collective good, is solely in the position to regulate the population as a commons, whereas individual choices involve short-sighted selfish decisions.

Of course it will be helpful to push from the foetal and men’s rights angles against liberalised abortion, rather than stressing outright the ‘anti-choice’ aspect of the legislation – but nonetheless, the ultimate aim must be a reproductive paradigm shift towards acceptance that one person’s reproductive decisions affect the whole of society, and are certainly not a mere ‘privacy issue’ for a woman and her doctor, or even for a couple.

Sterilisation of the severely defective must be implemented as it is in several countries around the world where ‘my body my choice’ is not a shibboleth, and though there will be objections from outright fanatics on both sides of the abortion debate, with which eugenics is linked in the public mind, the public will by and large agree as long as the practice is limited to the genuinely severely defective, and not over relatively trivial problems such as personality disorders or cleft palettes.

Likewise there is already strong though unspoken public support for the work of Project Prevention, and a similar scheme of long-term contraception and sterilisation should be implemented as an (initially) purely voluntary basis. People on welfare who are known to have serious congenital defects, must consent to similar terms before receiving money from the state, and sterilisation must be made compulsory for men who father children by three or more different women without providing the required financial and social support. However, most people are obviously not drug addicts, and too many people with the best genes are not reproducing enough with the result that those at the bottom are outbreeding those at the top who use (and abuse) birth control methods most consistently.

If birth control is not to be abolished altogether, which would be extremely difficult as well as unfair to thousands of responsible contraceptive users as well as encouraging the spread of STIs (but remember that only barrier protection carries this benefit), then public attitudes to contraception must change  from a means of sexual liberation (implicitly from biology itself, as though pregnancy is a medical problem to be prevented or cured by doctors), to one of responsible child spacing for a stable pair-bonded couple. Crypto-political groups with ulterior motives, such as the infamous feminist front Planned Parenthood and religious groups preaching that sex itself is a sin, must have their influences purged from places of education.

If all of the above seems irrelevant to the subject of NRTs, remember that its only because society allows people to research and implement technologies on the principle of ‘progress’ and freedom of research as an unconditional moral good, without setting moral terms in advance so as to mitigate potential harm, that innovations such as NRTs really are dangerous. This is because without a prior attitude to reproductive ethics such as outlined above, society is unprepared for changes, and society is expected to follow the demands of those possessing a monopoly over technologies rather than forcing technology to be implemented purely for socially conscious ends. If outright paranoia about new technologies is unhelpful, and often exists mostly to allow debates as an ends in themselves, then we need a lot more rational caution about technology in general – as with reproductive choices and insurance companies, a lassez faire attitude towards scientific research and ‘progress’ is bad for society.

It’s Time To Stop Obsessing About the Dangers of Genetic Information

Virginia Hughes


Read Full Post »

Meta Lane Blog

facts are good

Regulus Seradly

4 out of 5 dentists recommend this WordPress.com site

Destroy Zionism!

Exposing the World Parasite

Counter-Revolutionary Traditionalism

This blog is run by a reclusive bachelor in his late 20's who spouts political incorrect rhetoric