[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

amphibian, on 21 December 2021 - 04:01 AM, said:

Are you serious about eugenics and the abortion tax credit? It's a little hard to tell if sarcastic or not there.

Positive eugenics (as in government providing financial incentives for sperm/eggs from intelligent, healthy, etc. individuals)---yes. (Not forced sterilization or mandatory abortion. Of course the history of negative eugenics---mass murder, forced sterilization etc.---is horrible and should not be repeated. Yes, it's possible to have one without the other.)

Abortion tax credits---more of a joke, especially since it seems overpopulation is not likely to be an issue in the United States for the foreseeable future.

[Edit: concerns about poor people or underprivileged minorities being encouraged to take sperm/eggs from rich white/Asian people because of non-genetic factors in intelligence testing could be dealt with by controlling for race and income/privilege. Also, I doubt that financial compensation would lead poor people in the US to feel compelled to only have children via artificial insemination or to have more children than they want for the financial reward. Incentives can be tweaked and optimized....]

This post has been edited by Azath Vitr (D'ivers: 21 December 2021 - 05:05 PM

[Obdigore]

Your description of "positive eugenics" is just eugenics. Rewarding 'the right people' to have more babies is a massive right wing white power talking point.

Eugenics, as a whole, is psuedo-science.

[Macros]

considering that its been documented that environment and expectations (especially including stereotyped expectations) can massively impact a child's intelligence, both recorded and perceived. I'll politely not say where you can stick that eugenics suggestion.

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

Obdigore, on 21 December 2021 - 05:07 PM, said:

Your description of "positive eugenics" is just eugenics. Rewarding 'the right people' to have more babies is a massive right wing white power talking point.

Eugenics, as a whole, is psuedo-science.

There is a tremendous ethical difference between mass murder or forced sterilization and incentivizing desirable genetic traits.

Assuming that ideas must be bad just because they've been associated with some right-wing movements in the past (especially in horribly twisted, misguided, and unethical forms) is tribalism and guilt by association taking the place of critical thinking. (And there have been so many divergent ideas adopted by right-wing movements in the past and present....) The present-day right-wing in the US is not exactly devoted to science or intelligence (beyond racism and idiotic Trumpian narcissism).

While controlling for non-genetic factors in intelligence testing across racial or socioeconomic groups is problematic, twin studies controlling for those factors do indicate that (quoting Nature) 'intelligence is highly heritable and predicts important educational, occupational and health outcomes better than any other trait. Recent genome-wide association studies have successfully identified inherited genome sequence differences that account for 20% of the 50% heritability of intelligence.'

https://www.nature.c...es/nrg.2017.104

[Obdigore]

"We can totally do Eugenics, but better this time. We'll just breed out 'undesirable' traits. I'm 100% sure this will never be used by someone lacking in morals to do something horrendous to a vulnerable population. Ever. In fact I'm sure that I know what 'undesirable' traits are, and I'm the one who gets to decide this."

That is you right now and my dude, perhaps you need to rethink Eugenics as a science. Protip - it isn't one.

What's 20% of 50%? Because no one forced my parents to breed to make a smarter child, I'm dumb and used a calculator, and that says 10%. So your idea here, is that you're going to start a 'positive eugenics' movement based on being able to predict the intelligence of about 10%, on a good day, of the babies you are trying to force people to make?

Seems like a white sheet over the words 'trying to remove non-white "races"' to me.

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

Obdigore, on 21 December 2021 - 06:31 PM, said:

"We can totally do Eugenics, but better this time. We'll just breed out 'undesirable' traits. I'm 100% sure this will never be used by someone lacking in morals to do something horrendous to a vulnerable population. Ever. In fact I'm sure that I know what 'undesirable' traits are, and I'm the one who gets to decide this."

That is you right now and my dude, perhaps you need to rethink Eugenics as a science. Protip - it isn't one.

What's 20% of 50%? Because no one forced my parents to breed to make a smarter child, I'm dumb and used a calculator, and that says 10%. So your idea here, is that you're going to start a 'positive eugenics' movement based on being able to predict the intelligence of about 10%, on a good day, of the babies you are trying to force people to make?

Seems like a white sheet over the words 'trying to remove non-white "races"' to me.

As I wrote before (perhaps you missed the edit?), controlling for race and socioeconomic status would correct for the effects of racism, classism, etc.

It's not a matter of breeding out undesirable traits, but of promoting positive traits.

To bring this back to US politics as a practical matter---in the United States eugenics was a leftist / Progressive cause, though tarnished by racist assumptions and extreme coercive measures. And there are some circumstances under which 'guilt by association' may provide valid pragmatic objections to promoting an idea, particularly if it strengthens destructive right-wing forces (which is not to say the right-wing can never be cooperated with, or never have good ideas that they claim to support be enacted---infrastructure repair/updating for example).

This post has been edited by Azath Vitr (D'ivers: 21 December 2021 - 06:58 PM

[JPK]

Azath Vitr (D, on 21 December 2021 - 06:40 PM, said:

To bring this back to US politics as a practical matter---in the United States eugenics was a leftist / Progressive cause, though tarnished by racist assumptions and extreme coercive measures. And there are some circumstances under which 'guilt by association' may provide valid pragmatic objections to promoting an idea, particularly if it strengthens destructive right-wing forces (which is not to say the right-wing can never be cooperated with, or never have good ideas that they claim to support be enacted---infrastructure repair/updating for example).

Don't forget that the American left-wing eugenics program directly inspired that of the Nazis. After learning of that program Otmar Freiherr Von Verschuer studied and eventually became the head of the eugenics program at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute as well as the mentor of one Josef Mengele.

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

JPK, on 21 December 2021 - 07:54 PM, said:

Azath Vitr (D, on 21 December 2021 - 06:40 PM, said:

To bring this back to US politics as a practical matter---in the United States eugenics was a leftist / Progressive cause, though tarnished by racist assumptions and extreme coercive measures. And there are some circumstances under which 'guilt by association' may provide valid pragmatic objections to promoting an idea, particularly if it strengthens destructive right-wing forces (which is not to say the right-wing can never be cooperated with, or never have good ideas that they claim to support be enacted---infrastructure repair/updating for example).

Don't forget that the American left-wing eugenics program directly inspired that of the Nazis. After learning of that program Otmar Freiherr Von Verschuer studied and eventually became the head of the eugenics program at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute as well as the mentor of one Josef Mengele.

Yes, that's what I was referring to by 'mass murder'. But dismissing an idea just because an already warped, racist, oppressive version of it inspired the Nazis is like saying Socialism is bad because it inspired Stalin and Mao. Again back to more practical US political concerns---that's how we get ridiculous but popular right-wing claims that socialized medicine will lead to gulags.

[Aptorian]

Personally I think the Forkrul Assail have the solution to America's problems.

[Macros]

personally, and feel free to call me crazy,

I feel like a much improved education system would be a much better starting place than a selective breeding program.
and lets not dance around it, it is a selective breeding program.

no you can't have kids, because we don't think you're good enough to procreate.

break down for me how eugenics doesn't boil down to telling someone they don't deserve to reproduce.

[Tsundoku]

I'd personally like to see something whereby we could first detect, and later excise nasty genetic disorders. Imagine a world where such things were a relic of the past.

Using phrases like "don't deserve to reproduce" on the basis of economic or moral circumstances ... not so easy. Far too subjective.

EDIT: Let's face it though, we all know of people of whom we have ALL said "That rat fucker shouldn't have kids". But that's a very slippery slope I don't believe we're enlightened enough to get into yet as a species. The disconnect between feeling it and having a decent, consistent, widely acceptable policy is quite a yawning gulf.

Even my tempting little idea of blocking all people from being able to reproduce until they've demonstrated they're worthy is fun to think about in isolation, but the reality is it's a case of being too subjective. Where do you draw the line on worth? I'm quite confident if I were given all that power I'd make the right choices, but I dare say many would disagree. And that would be the case for all of us ...

I definitely agree with better education systems, added to a stronger child welfare and protection system would be a good start. Trouble is, a lot of western countries already have a setup which should be good enough but fails the most vulnerable far too often.

And then there's everyone's different ideas about the role of the state. And our trust in the state's ability to perform it at least adequately ... urgh.

This post has been edited by Tsundoku: 21 December 2021 - 11:10 PM

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

Macros, on 21 December 2021 - 10:26 PM, said:

personally, and feel free to call me crazy,

I feel like a much improved education system would be a much better starting place than a selective breeding program.
and lets not dance around it, it is a selective breeding program.

no you can't have kids, because we don't think you're good enough to procreate.

break down for me how eugenics doesn't boil down to telling someone they don't deserve to reproduce.

It's not saying less intelligent people don't deserve to reproduce. It's saying that society will benefit from having a larger number of extremely intelligent people, and being willing to go through artificial insemination or egg implantation (the latter probably only in cases of infertility) to that end should be financially rewarded and encouraged. Of course it shouldn't be a system in which welfare for basic needs is otherwise withheld---not get inseminated with Neil DeGrasse Tyson's sperm (or that of Mr 'very good brain' himself) to get cash right now or starve.

Some background:

'Here's another reason the rich are getting richer and the poor are falling farther behind: [...] an international team of economists finds that better educated people are increasingly more likely to marry other better-educated people while those with less formal schooling are more likely to choose a less well-educated partner.

As a consequence, income inequality has increased because education is strongly correlated with income—the more schooling you have, the more money you typically earn, according to a team of economists headed by Jeremy Greenwood of the University of Pennsylvania.'

https://www.pewresea...sortive-mating/

Statistically, part of that can be attributed to genetic differences, and is exacerbating those genetic differences. Financial incentives for positive eugenics would be not only a redistribution of monetary wealth but a redistribution of genetic wealth---or rather better production and distribution of socially beneficial genetic resources. (Not that stupidity doesn't have some social benefits---for humor for example. Or if you're a politician who wants to appeal to gullible idiots. But overall intelligence is a social virtue in our age.)


Back to the Child Tax Credit---I'd also in all seriousness add that people otherwise should not be given a financial incentive to have children, especially if automation is able to advance as quickly as I hope. (Have robots, not children! Or cyborg cats, at least....) If automation fails to deliver, adult immigration still seems like a better solution to me. But the US is (and hopefully will be even moreso) a rich enough country to help all citizens with basic needs and a decent social safety net (but oh no the Communism! gulag express here we come). Instead of a child tax credit, it should be a needs-based individual tax credit or UBI.

This post has been edited by Azath Vitr (D'ivers: 21 December 2021 - 11:42 PM

[Maark Abbott]

Whilst I am all for meritocracy, the notion of society benefiting from a larger number of extremely intelligent people doesn't really do anything for the general population as it still concentrates power in the hands of those who have, rather than distributing to all. And invariably such breeding would only be available to the wealthy anyway, so you wind up with some horrible mishmash of oligarchy and technocracy, whilst still splashing around in the pool of eugenics.

Improve conditions for all, improve education for all, everyone wins.

As to the point about the wealthy marrying the wealthy and the poor marrying the poor, that's just class. You don't need a team of economists to see the stratification between upper / middle / working class groups.

[Macros]

The rich getting richer has everything to do with governmental corruption and exploitation of the under classes and very very little to do with smart people marrying smart people.
Being college educated in America doesn't make you smart, it means you were willing to take on a butt load of debt or mummy and daddy paid you through.

[Maark Abbott]

Macros, on 22 December 2021 - 09:25 AM, said:

The rich getting richer has everything to do with governmental corruption and exploitation of the under classes and very very little to do with smart people marrying smart people.
Being college educated in America doesn't make you smart, it means you were willing to take on a butt load of debt or mummy and daddy paid you through.

Oh absolutely, my point was more along the lines of who is going to be able to afford experimental treatments etc to attempt to utilise hyper intelligent sperm/ eggs? Yep that's right, the wealthy, so we'd still have oligarchy, just a marginally less stupid one and even that's a punt and a half.

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

Maark Abbott, on 22 December 2021 - 08:54 AM, said:

Whilst I am all for meritocracy, the notion of society benefiting from a larger number of extremely intelligent people doesn't really do anything for the general population as it still concentrates power in the hands of those who have, rather than distributing to all. And invariably such breeding would only be available to the wealthy anyway, so you wind up with some horrible mishmash of oligarchy and technocracy, whilst still splashing around in the pool of eugenics.

Improve conditions for all, improve education for all, everyone wins.

As to the point about the wealthy marrying the wealthy and the poor marrying the poor, that's just class. You don't need a team of economists to see the stratification between upper / middle / working class groups.

The proposal is for the government (or a charitable organization) to both finance this and provide additional financial incentives. The whole point is to make it accessible and attractive for people who aren't too rich for the financial incentives to matter.

It's perfectly legal already for the rich to do it if they want to, though I'd expect egotism to get in the way.

As for schooling---there's just a huge gap in potential. Better education (short of turning people into cyborgs) isn't going to break the ceiling that most people have. Sure, better schooling would be good for democracy, and it might help motivate or provide a safe study space for people with potential who might otherwise have their development stunted (or redirected into the prison system, etc.), but it's not sufficient. The vast majority of the population has comparatively limited maximum potential. Extremely intelligent people learn next to diddly squat from teachers, at least after learning to read and use the internet discerningly; if anything they should be able to test out of classes.

The point is not about 'the wealthy marrying the wealthy'. The research controls for socioeconomic class. Many intelligent people escape Trumplandia analogues largely through educational achievement.

This post has been edited by Azath Vitr (D'ivers: 22 December 2021 - 05:46 PM

[Grief]

Azath Vitr (D, on 22 December 2021 - 05:05 PM, said:

Better education (short of turning people into cyborgs) isn't going to break the ceiling that most people have. [...] The vast majority of the population has comparatively limited maximum potential.

This feels like a strong statement given the uncertainty around nature vs nurture. If we can raise people to be chess grandmasters then is it really accurate to say that most people have limited potential?

I would also question the basic notion that societal progress is driven by a small number of extremely intelligent people. Progress is often very incremental. Our culture tends to hyper-focus on a small number of "geniuses" while ignoring all the people whose shoulders they were standing upon, but the big breakthroughs tend to rely on a lot of smaller breakthroughs happening in the background. (And the "big" breakthroughs might not be qualitatively different from the "smaller" ones, they might just end up having more application for one reason or another).

[Gwynn ap Nudd]

Not to mention that basing anything on intelligence alone is a pretty useless exercise. There's plenty of very intelligent people who put that intelligence to uses that are not beneficial to society or just can't be arsed.

[Tsundoku]

Intelligence is nothing without the wisdom to use it properly.

[Maark Abbott]

Tsundoku, on 23 December 2021 - 04:49 AM, said:

Intelligence is nothing without the wisdom to use it properly.

Where's that panel about the Spiderman villain who wants to turn people into dinosaurs when I need it.