PDA

View Full Version : Famous Supporters of Eugenics



NachtWolf
02-18-2003, 11:28 PM
I need to stop posting here. Iíve been thinking this for the past week, and I know that unless I make some sort of official post indicating my departure, I will simply to continue returning here and arguing ineffectually with people who wonít pay any attention. I will continue to check for private messages for a week, and after that I do not imagine that I will return.

I admit that these experiences have been somewhat confusing to me, since offline I have little difficulty of winning people over to eugenics. My students and fellow classmates are always remarking to me about ďgood genesĒ this or ďIím going to have kidsĒ that, and itís heartening. The last time I heard the smallest whisper of ďNazismĒ was from my speech teacher during a eugenics speech I made to the class, and he was seriously outnumbered by the time I was finished speaking - the students in that class could not have been more sympathetic to the idea of eugenics, and were eager to suggest possible remedies for dysgenics and ideas which could encourage the intelligent to fulfill their responsibilities and procreate!

During the course of my stay here I have deluged this board with quotes, links, studies, and miscellaneous information on eugenics; probably enough to put together into a short book. Because I was able to draw upon the entire ĎNet to support my ideas, I was able to make some of the most thorough arguments in favor of eugenics that I have ever written, yet while Iíve had some successes with these arguments and made a few friends, I would characterize my effectiveness here as ďmarginal.Ē This, combined with the oppositionís consistent failure to bring any new information or evidence to the discussion has frayed my nerves and exhausted my patience.

I will leave the way I have always posted, by submitting information for your perusal. This time, interestingly, I have gathered the information almost entirely from rabidly anti-eugenic sources. Those here who have been following the discussion would probably find it a curiosity to read over.

I might post again once I have completed my eugenics page on the web to let everyone know that itís up, but otherwise I will allow this board to breathe a collective sigh of relief in my absence, knowing that there wonít be anyone heckling them for sources, hounding them to try harder, or pushing them to accept things they donít have the strength to believe.

Iíd like to wish a fond farewell to Spab, Simone, Renee, Frank, NJ Refugee, Stage Monster, Battletoad, Turtle_O, SpieŖer, and Unrepresented.

The Method and the Nation!

--Nachtwolf

________________________________

The following men were outspoken proponents of eugenics, many of them so rabidly supportive of it that they advocated forced sterelization. While they were instrumental to the eugenics movement now and then, their coolness and lack of compassion have been less than favorable to the reputation of eugenics, and it will probably come as a surprise to see these people, otherwise respected and revered, providing such staunch and uncompromising support for eugenics.

Charles Darwin
H.G. Wells
Margaret Sanger
Samuel Butler
Plato
Alexander Graham Bell
John D. Rockefeller
Theodore Roosevelt
John H. Kellog
Charles Davenport
Lewis Terman


http://www.fathom.com/feature/122169

Galton's influence was nearly immediate. Darwin declared himself persuaded by his cousin's eugenic arguments, and Galton attracted a number of distinguished disciples.


http://reason.com/hod/dl032602.shtml

Wells plays a particularly interesting role in the eugenics movement. In 1904 he discussed a survey paper by Francis Galton, co-founder of eugenics. Galton had concerned himself mainly with "positive eugenics," proposing for instance that the marriage of college professors, supposedly the best of the race, be subsidized. But this was feeble stuff for Wells, who urged the adoption of a negative breeding policy. "I believe," he wrote, "that now and always the conscious selection of the best for reproduction will be impossible; that to propose it is to display a fundamental misunderstanding of what individuality implies. The way of nature has always been to slay the hindmost, and there is still no other way, unless we can prevent those who would become the hindmost being born. It is in the sterilization of failure, and not in the selection of successes for breeding, that the possibility of an improvement of the human stock lies."


http://www.thedarwinpapers.com/oldsite/number13/number13.html

Margaret Sanger, the Founder of Planned Parenthood, advocated eugenics, describing it as a way to eliminate "human waste" from society.

"Everywhere we see poverty and large families going hand in hand. Those least fit to carry on the race are increasing most rapidly. People who cannot support their own offspring are encouraged by Church and State to produce large families. Many of the children thus begotten are diseased or feeble-minded; many become criminals. The burden of supporting these unwanted types has to be bourne by the healthy elements of the nation. Funds that should be used to raise the standard of our civilization are diverted to the maintenance of those who should never have been born."


http://www.mega.nu:8080/ampp/PeterMorton/vs5_eugenics.htm

Plato can be found advocating a... scheme for the propagation of the Guardians, his ruling class. In Plato's Utopia there are legal, in fact compulsory, infanticide and abortion; there are marriage festivals with unlimited opportunities for copulation for those men who have distinguished themselves in war; and there are faked lotteries to quiet the resentment of the majority not selected for breeding. (Plato's exact words justifying this fraud are: 'we shall have to arrange an ingenious system of drawing lots, so that our inferior Guardians can... blame the lot and not the Rulersí)


http://mdcbowen.org/p2/rm/20th.htm

Alexander Graham Bell (1847-1922) Scottish inventor known for inventing the telephone. "How to Improve the Race," January 1914 issue of the Journal of Heredity, edited by Paul Popenoe. Bell revealed himself as a "mainstream" eugenicist who believed in "positive eugenics," which aimed at increasing the percentage of healthy and talented individuals in succeeding generations, rather than in "negative eugenics," the term commonly ascribed to measures designed to prevent the spread of deleterious genes.


http://mdcbowen.org/p2/rm/20th.htm

John D. Rockefeller (1839-1937) family founded Standard Oil Co. (now Mobil) and National City Bank (later Citibank).

He founded the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, which quickly became a funding conduit for eugenics research. He was also one of the main supporters of the Eugenics Records Office--the eugencists' "think tank." Such backing has produced results in America as well as overseas.



http://mdcbowen.org/p2/rm/20th.htm

In support of the eugenics movement, (Theodore) Roosevelt wrote that

"it is obvious that if in the future racial qualities are to be improved, the improving must be wrought mainly by favoring the fecundity [fertility] of the worthy types... At present, we do just the reverse. There is no check to the fecundity of those who are subnormal..."


http://mdcbowen.org/p2/rm/20th.htm

John Harvey Kellogg (1852-1943) a major figure in the eugenics movement founded the American Medical Missionary Board (but soon changed its name to the Race Betterment Foundation). Kellogg himself was an important and respected figure who authored numerous medical and eugenics treatises in order to lobby for policy of "national eugenics." Kellogg, who launched the breakfast cereals industry by introducing granola to the American public as a health food.


http://mdcbowen.org/p2/rm/20th.htm

Charles Benedict Davenport (1866-1944) a biologist with a Ph.D. from Harvard University, pushed the American eugenics movement. In the US, he was fascinated more by the idea of the inheritability of human traits than by Darwin's focus on the evolution of species over time. Davenport's work provided a typical list of hereditary traits: eye color, hair, skin, stature, weight, special ability in music, drawing, painting, literary composition, calculating, or memorizing, weakness of the mucous membranes, nomadism, general bodily energy, strength, mental ability, epilepsy, shiftlessness, insanity, pauperism, criminality, various forms of nervous disease, defects of speech, sight, hearing, cancer, tuberculosis, pneumonia, skeletal deformities, and other traits.

In his major work, "Heredity in Relation to Eugenics", published in 1911, he advocated compulsory sterilization for those deemed to be unfit for procreation, and was against mine and factory safety laws, charitable institutions, safety standards and sewage regulations, since these would only keep those alive who in evolutionary terms should be candidates for extinction by the Darwinian law of "survival of the fittest." He also advocated capital punishment for the crime of being born of inferior blood.

"Heredity in Relation to Eugenics", that weaknesses in society were due to the unnatural preservation, by the use of modern medicine, of the "feeble-minded" and "unfit."


http://mdcbowen.org/p2/rm/20th.htm

Lewis Madison Terman (1877-1956), president of the American Psychological Association and of the National Academy of Sciences. Terman was of the Galtonian school and believed that intelligence was genetic. Academically best known for his revision of the Binet Scale (1916), his co-authorship of the Stanford Achievement Tests (SAT), and his massive four-volume "Genetic Studies of Genius" (1926- 30). Terman was a major voice in the eugenics movement, and was a key member of the Eugenics Society committee on psychometry.

He declared that, "If we would preserve our state for a class of people worthy to possess it, we would prevent, as far as possible, the propagation of mental degenerates."

Unrepresented
02-19-2003, 03:17 AM
Mark, I'm of course sad to see you go, feel free to drop by when you get the urge, and even on non-eugenic topics should one potentially arise.;) You seemed to have a more diverse set of interests for discussion than a number of "issue-oriented" posters we've had.

I can't say why you'd have any greater or lesser luck here than in real life, but perhaps the setting is a key. You're approaching a group of people who enjoy arguing. They're going to look at your arguments in terms of potential flaws rather than from a tabula rasa position. You have an uphill battle from the start. Positions do change here, I know I've shifted a fair amount in my ideologies as a result of reading posts and creating arguments. Best of luck to you in spreading knowledge. I urge that to everyone.

Interestingly enough, my final project in a speech class a few years back (which I selected with complete freedom) was on sterilizing the mentally retarded. Small world eh?:D

Justin

jonnyofthedead
02-19-2003, 04:52 AM
Well, a brief bit of advice for you, Mr. Wolf. The central problem with your approach to the subject is not your argument. Most people know about the comparatively low birth rate of the professional classes compared with that of the poor; most would agree that the world would be a better place if people on the whole were smarter; most would agree that intelligence is, at least to some extent, hereditary; and most would agree that if smart people have more kids than the stupid, society as a whole will get brighter. If left there, no one has much problem with your arguments, as far as I can tell. And indeed, with the sort of passive system you advocate, the prime argument against your position, that eugenics would deprive people of their civil liberties and reproductive freedom, is rendered null.

So the problem has nothing to do with your arguments, but rather with the way you advance them. Your fatal flaw lies in assuming people to be entirely rational beings. We're not. At best, Man is an animal with the capacity for rational thought, which he only sometimes acts on. Your repeated use of the word 'eugenics' brings to mind fascism, totalitarianism, the failed eugenic experiments carried in places like Sweden in the 30s, and all sorts of other unpleasant connotations, and the way you phrase your arguments tends to accentuate this. What's more, the sort of anonymous confrontational debate encouraged by the internet means that once someone's adopted a position based on these images, they'll be exceptionally reluctant to change their minds, and any chance of your arguments receiving a fair hearing vanishes. If you are intent on pushing this idea on the net, your best bet would be to acknowledge that even intelligent people have dumb biases, and adapt to this. Drop the word eugenics, couch your argument in softer, more appealing terms, and I'd expect your success rate to rise.

Anywho, good luck with the physics and all that.

Highway Star
02-19-2003, 01:33 PM
Goodbye, Mark. I always appreciated your quality posts on here.

SimoneAsLily
02-19-2003, 08:26 PM
I can identify with the need to take a break from posting.

And I can still remember the passionate, idealistic period of my earlier life.

For me, Mark, no matter how you dress it up, eugenics still smacks of classism( elitist driven) and racism.

Racism- There are differences in IQ- so what? I'm not particularly religious but quoting some friends of mine 'God don't make junk'. If these 'subs' are meant to survive they will survive. But to 'play Higher Power' and declare these 'subs' should not procreate, I can't get there from here.

Now to encourage them not to is an entirely different matter. Financially driven incentive eugenics programs, continued education on birth control, ( but keep abortions out of the approved BC methods) --- do it to it.


The main issue for me revolves around the 'classism' Who are these eugeniciists to say who is worthy and not worthy of procreating? Oh my gosh another 'religious saying comes to mind. There is value in 'even these the least of my brethren'.

Moral and ethical judging has gone on since time begun- no chance of that going away. But time also has the effect of changing what is 'valued'. In early times physical prowess( hunting and protection) were highly valued.

IQ, 'g' are important but not the end-all be-all. Despite the many studies that have been done( and I have read thru a lot of them) there are few clearly defined, unequivocal, no bones about it proofs that 'inherited' ( its in the genes-right?) traits are always inherited.

Somehow without the 'benefits' or intervention of eugenicists civilization has managed to progress from the ape-like primitive creatures of bygone years. You have pointed out many times about the downfall of certain civilizations yet the world, humanity, the species have managed to survive (if they were suppose to).

I sincerely applaud and promote any research that eugenicists can due in the areas of alleviating and eliminating inherited diseases. A worthy goal. Eliminating races is not.

Several times you have mentioned that the intelligent MUST FULFILL THEIR RESPONSIBILITY to procreate. It is expressions of that ilk that go along way towards 'turning me off'. This mean-spirited cocky independent female would say - OH YEAH MAKE ME.

Mark, I have not read all the links you supplied in this thread yet. But I will. That 'famous' people endorse this policy does not hold any more weight with me than if my next door neighbor said it. Now the fact that YOU endorse it gives me reason to not to plain out reject it.

For the majority of your posts I have witnessed a very intelligent person carefully provide material that 'many don't have the strength to believe' but nevertheless was presented in a professional way.

And there are other topics besides eugenics to post opinions on - so don;t stay away just because you have found few to jump on the bandwagon.


I;m not so sure if you will still say 'I love you ' after reading this post. I have not closed my mind to the exciting thought of improving the quality of life- but it has to be for everyone.

Simone

I definitely am on some sort of a kick here. While writing this I thought of Gandhi's 'list of sins'


Mahatma Gandhi's List

Wealth without Work
Pleasure without Conscience
Science without Humanity
Knowledge without Character
Politics without Principle
Commerce without Morality
Worship without Sacrifice

Johnson
02-19-2003, 08:30 PM
You forgot Uncle Adolf.

HeWhoCannotBeNamed
02-19-2003, 08:43 PM
Originally posted by NachtWolf

I admit that these experiences have been somewhat confusing to me, since offline I have little difficulty of winning people over to eugenics. My students and fellow classmates are always remarking to me about ďgood genesĒ this or ďIím going to have kidsĒ that, and itís heartening. The last time I heard the smallest whisper of ďNazismĒ was from my speech teacher during a eugenics speech I made to the class, and he was seriously outnumbered by the time I was finished speaking - the students in that class could not have been more sympathetic to the idea of eugenics, and were eager to suggest possible remedies for dysgenics and ideas which could encourage the intelligent to fulfill their responsibilities and procreate!



Maybe that says something about your fellow students? Your ability to convince a pack of 18 year old kids of your position is hardly a monumental accomplishment.



Originally posted by jonnyofthedead


So the problem has nothing to do with your arguments, but rather with the way you advance them. Your fatal flaw lies in assuming people to be entirely rational beings. We're not. At best, Man is an animal with the capacity for rational thought, which he only sometimes acts on. Your repeated use of the word 'eugenics' brings to mind fascism, totalitarianism, the failed eugenic experiments carried in places like Sweden in the 30s, and all sorts of other unpleasant connotations, and the way you phrase your arguments tends to accentuate this. What's more, the sort of anonymous confrontational debate encouraged by the internet means that once someone's adopted a position based on these images, they'll be exceptionally reluctant to change their minds, and any chance of your arguments receiving a fair hearing vanishes. If you are intent on pushing this idea on the net, your best bet would be to acknowledge that even intelligent people have dumb biases, and adapt to this. Drop the word eugenics, couch your argument in softer, more appealing terms, and I'd expect your success rate to rise.


I would agree with jonny. If you are simply campaigning to bring people a greater understanding of genetics impact on the future of society's composition thats one thing.

You friendship and admiration of the various racist nationalists on the internet betray some more sinister motives I think. The question even boils down to the same one they get stuck on: How to implement the policy? Presumably for eugenics to be really successfull there would have to be some master plan that was being followed and thats where the whole issue becomes more sinister

Frank
02-19-2003, 09:01 PM
You friendship and admiration of the various racist nationalists on the internet betray some more sinister motives I think.

Sorry about this comment from "HeWhoCannotBeNamed" Mark, HWCBN seems to dislike any white person who does not support massive third world immigration, displacement of the majority population, anti-white hiring/university entrance quotes and their daughters marrying African pygmies.

Mark, you have contributed some fascinating and interesting arguments and I will miss you.

HeWhoCannotBeNamed
02-19-2003, 09:19 PM
Originally posted by Frank


Sorry about this comment from "HeWhoCannotBeNamed" Mark, HWCBN seems to dislike any white person who does not support massive third world immigration, displacement of the majority population, anti-white hiring/university entrance quotes and their daughters marrying African pygmies.

Mark, you have contributed some fascinating and interesting arguments and I will miss you.

How old are you Frank? 13? 14? :rolleyes:

He said he was confused about why people reacted poorly towards him online and I pointed out some reasons.

Frank
02-19-2003, 09:28 PM
He said he was confused about why people reacted poorly towards him online and I pointed out some reasons.

You implied that he had sinister motives because he was friendly to the "evil" white people.

Mark was honest and open, I saw no sinister motives. He was honest about what he stood for from the beginning.

His honesty is what I will miss the most.

Renee
02-19-2003, 09:33 PM
I wish you luck in converting the masses, Mark :)

Take care!

*hugs*

Legionnaire
02-19-2003, 10:32 PM
Originally posted by Blackshirt
You forgot Uncle Adolf.

That was entirely uncalled for, Ray (if that's your real name... Rhys). Hitler did not support anything that had any resmeblance whatsoever to the humanitarian eugenics Mark advocates.

Eugenics and the Third Reich by Stephen B. Saetz. (http://www.eugenics.net/papers/3rdreich.html)

Legionnaire
02-19-2003, 10:33 PM
Originally posted by HeWhoCannotBeNamed

You friendship and admiration of the various racist nationalists on the internet betray some more sinister motives I think.

I don't see anything sinister behind Mark allying himself with the most intelligent, rational thinkers on this group. No wonder you and him never got along well; he does after all, advocate increasing IQ.

HeWhoCannotBeNamed
02-20-2003, 02:07 AM
Originally posted by Legionnaire


I don't see anything sinister behind Mark allying himself with the most intelligent, rational thinkers on this group. No wonder you and him never got along well; he does after all, advocate increasing IQ.

Are you insinuating that I have a low IQ? I suppose you would know all about that though right? :rolleyes:

Legionnaire
02-20-2003, 09:52 AM
Originally posted by HeWhoCannotBeNamed


Are you insinuating that I have a low IQ?


Why would you care? According to you, IQ tests are biased against anyone (especially minorities) who scores low.

I suppose you would know all about that though right?

Yes.

HeWhoCannotBeNamed
02-20-2003, 02:28 PM
Originally posted by Legionnaire



Why would you care? According to you, IQ tests are biased against anyone (especially minorities) who scores low.


When did I say that? Or are you just making things up?

It is rediculous to use asingle factor like IQ to plot some sort of eugeneic program. Sure you might end up with a population with higher IQ but they could all be physically deformed cripples. But I giess sine YOU believe IQ is the driving force behind the hostory of humanity everything else is of little consequence.

Renee
02-20-2003, 02:40 PM
Originally posted by HeWhoCannotBeNamed
Sure you might end up with a population with higher IQ but they could all be physically deformed cripples.

You're really reaching far, aren't you?

Legionnaire
02-20-2003, 02:51 PM
Originally posted by HeWhoCannotBeNamed


When did I say that? Or are you just making things up?

So you admit that the difference in IQ between various racial grouping are genuine differences in intelligence, and not a reuslt of an evil white racist consiracy to keep Africans and Latinos down?
[/quote]


Sure you might end up with a population with higher IQ but they could all be physically deformed cripples.
No. I've yet to meet a single born cripple with a high IQ.


But I giess sine YOU believe IQ is the driving force behind the hostory of humanity everything else is of little consequence.

I don't "believe" it, I know it for a fact. Intelligence creates civilization. That's why Africa is so unimaginably primitve, and Japan and Hong Kong are so advanced.

Frank
02-20-2003, 03:56 PM
You're really reaching far, aren't you?

"HeWhoCannotBeNamed" is so driven to eliminate White Nationalism that in another thread he accused us of aiding Timothy McVeigh hoping it would discredit us regardless of the lack of evidence connecting the two.

Nothing surprises me here.

Xenodamus
02-20-2003, 04:09 PM
Eugenics is far from being an accurate "science". Stop wasting your time on old ideas. New biotech discoveries can lead to better human beings instead. Nanotechnology can also open new doors which can easily make eugenics a thing of the past.

Frank
02-20-2003, 04:15 PM
Nanotechnology can also open new doors which can easily make eugenics a thing of the past.

No way, I do not want to be half-machine, running around, telling everyone that that they will be assimilated and that resistance is futile. :D :D :D

Legionnaire
02-20-2003, 04:16 PM
Originally posted by Xenodamus
Stop wasting your time on old ideas. New biotech discoveries can lead to better human beings instead.

That's still eugenics, albeit more refined than the old kind.


Nanotechnology can also open new doors which can easily make eugenics a thing of the past.

Not for quite some time.

Highway Star
02-20-2003, 04:56 PM
Isn't nanotechnology, or at least the specific application of it for humans, technically still eugenics though?

Renee
02-20-2003, 07:45 PM
Originally posted by Frank
"HeWhoCannotBeNamed" is so driven to eliminate White Nationalism that in another thread he accused us of aiding Timothy McVeigh hoping it would discredit us regardless of the lack of evidence connecting the two.

Nothing surprises me here.

LOL. They really love to stretch it, don't they?

Remember after the Columbine massacre, the media tried to say that the Trenchcoat mafia were "neo-nazis", even though one of the kids was Jewish? If some white kid or guy does anything bad, they try to link it to "neo-nazis", no matter how much they lack any connection. HWCBN has just been influenced by all that junk.

Sinclair
02-20-2003, 08:52 PM
How is eugenicism "racist"? I'm not a supporter of it, but if you believe that eugenicism (I really hope that's the right word) is "racist", wouldn't that meant you believe that one raise is superior to another?

Xenodamus
02-20-2003, 09:24 PM
Originally posted by Legionnaire
That's still eugenics, albeit more refined than the old kind.


That depends on your definition of eugenics. You see NachtWulf want to remove all the "bad" people in society and have selective breeding for the next generations. Now only that his idea for a better society is majorly flawed, but it would also cause a negative impact for the rest of society of invalids. It's sort of like the movie GATTICA.
What I proposed is something that would give everyone a chance to be better through the usage of new technology. If this does happen and we continue to integrate more with the new technologies with ourselves, then there is a good chance that our next step in evolution was created by ourselves instead of traditional nature which would bring the end to the human era.


Originally posted by Legionnaire
Not for quite some time.

Scientists in that perticular field forcast that we will have that kind of advanced nanotechnology in 40 to 50 years from now depending on how things are rapidly progressing at the moment.


Originally posted by Highway Star
Isn't nanotechnology, or at least the specific application of it for humans, technically still eugenics though?

Nanotechnology is the science of very small programmable machines. Nanotechlogy is not really related to eugenics unless you want to program a vapor of nanoprobes to kill off invalids. However, there is big talk about how nanotechlogy can play a big role into transhumanism which is what the eugenicists try to achieve as well.

I'm really tired at the moment so it's posible that my post isn't very accurate right now.

NachtWolf
03-28-2003, 12:05 AM
perhaps the setting is a key
I think thatís quite likely. Iím highly respected on campus because itís an academic setting, but on this board people are less respectful of intelligence or education. I also realize, in retrospect, that there were a lot of posters here who agreed with me but just didnít post because they had nothing to add.

***


Your fatal flaw lies in assuming people to be entirely rational beings. We're not.
But I am. Oh I have feelings, to be sure, but I refuse to base my arguments on irrationality. Indeed, how am I supposed to appeal to the emotions of people here? Itís quite clear that few posters share my emotional sentiments on any subject.


Drop the word eugenics, couch your argument in softer, more appealing terms, and I'd expect your success rate to rise.
What I advocate is eugenics. Thereís no getting around it. If I were to persuade the entire world of the importance of this issue, it would take only a single Priest of the Apocalypse (and this board is littered with them) to point out "Thereís a word for what this man wants, and that word is eugenics!" What happens then? Unless I can make people understand that eugenics and Nazism are only vaguely linked at best (if anything, Hitler was a dysgenist) it isnít going to work.

***


For me, Mark, no matter how you dress it up, eugenics still smacks of classism( elitist driven) and racism.

I understand your concerns, Simone. But no matter how "classist" or "racist" you think the typical eugenist is, that isnít going to make dysgenics disappear. I never said that intelligence is the only thing that matters, (no matter how much people want to think that I have,) but we need intelligence, and we are loosing it. No matter how skeptical you may be that intelligence is at all hereditary, they have already identified a gene which affects intelligence, and the fact that the IQs of identical twins raised apart correlate over 80% proves that heredity plays a massive role in the development of intelligence. Since intelligence is inversely linked to fertility, the conclusion is unavoidable: the genetic component to intelligence is declining.

Anyone who believes that we shouldnít do anything about that is either a misanthrope or a fool.


Iím not so sure if you will still say 'I love you ' after reading this post.
You have taken my posts seriously and considered them critically. Itís better that you should meet my ideas with skepticism than with blithe acceptance, and far better than with closed minded disagreement. My opinion of you has not changed.

***


Presumably for eugenics to be really successfull there would have to be some master plan that was being followed and thats where the whole issue becomes more sinister
Be as suspicious as you like; it wonít change the fact that the genetic component to intelligence is rapidly declining, and that after 200 years, all this will be gone. You can waste time questioning my motives, or you can help me to find a solution. If you choose to help, you will have a say as to what eugenic action is taken. If not, you will be forced to trust that others have good intentions and that their efforts to reverse dysgenics will succeed. I donít think you should trust us. I think you should join us.


you might end up with a population with higher IQ but they could all be physically deformed cripples
As Lewis Terman was able to show in a longitudinal study of 1,500 people in the 140+ IQ range, intelligent people are more likely to be taller, stronger, healthier, and rated as more attractive by their peers. The possibility you bring up is interesting, but unlikely to the point of irrelevance.

***


I do not want to be half-machine, running around, telling everyone that that they will be assimilated and that resistance is futile.
Iím inclined to second your sentiments, Frank. Nanotech is not yet a feasible solution to anything, and moreover itís artificial. By contrast, Eugenics is perfectly natural, and we already know it works.

***


Eugenics is far from being an accurate "science". Stop wasting your time on old ideas.


You see NachtWulf want to remove all the "bad" people in society and have selective breeding for the next generations. Now only that his idea for a better society is majorly flawed, but it would also cause a negative impact for the rest of society of invalids. It's sort of like the movie GATTICA.
Xenodamus, you are why I cannot stand to remain on this board. You watched a work of fiction and believe that you came away from the experience with a factual understanding of the world in which you live. You have not the vaguest clue about the subject you are discussing, but you donít let that hamper you in the slightest. You donít know what eugenics is. You donít know what I want. You donít even know how to spell my handle. You, along with every other poster here who has muddied the water with ignorant, unsubstantiated statements, should be ashamed of yourself.

--Mark