Would increased selection pressure be a good thing?

I’m not talking about anything Hitler-esque. Well, actually, I suppose I am in the very loosest sense.

Modern medicine has made it so that people who could never have reproduced in our evolutionary environment can do so now without too much difficulty. Our modern societal structure has it so that stupid poor people outbreed smart more well-off people by a HUGE margin. If most of us agree that we owe it to future generations to impose more strict environmental controls on ourselves, and effectively make our lives just a little bit worse so that overall the future will be a better place, couldn’t we apply that same logic to breeding? Abstractly, might it not be better to find some way to increase selection pressures, so that we don’t end up with a future full of morons with terrible immune systems and physical disfigurements?

Note that I am in no way advocating that we do so, or that we do so via a particular means. The most efficient way to do so would be to have “reproduction licenses” or some such, and even if you think such a thing could be implemented fairly (which I do), it’s impossible to imagine that people would accept that without revolting. This is a purely academic question – IF we could implement restrictions (or increase selection pressure some other way) that people would accept, could it ever be a good idea?

eugenicsarchive.org/eugenics/list3.pl

great idea…

history never repeats

-Imp

Not to mention Philosopher Kings.

If you people do not believe eugenics is not already in the works, then you haven’t been paying attention to anything.

You’ve lifted the lid on something here, Twiffy. It’s depressing to think that people in “lower strata” are outbreeding those “above” them, but the consolation is that machines could take over before the human race rubbishes itself :slight_smile:

Yeah, the native americans could not believe how fast the white people bred.

Hmmm. No one’s really biting, Twiff. Maybe you should have turned up the rhetoric a bit.

This is always the bullshit of eugenics, because with statements like that they are confusing economics and education with genetics. There are more stupid poor people than well off people not because the stupid poor people have bad genes, but that they are stupid and poor. Similarly, rich well-educated people do not have superior genes, they were simply fed better as children, went to better schools and grew up believing they’d actually be something.

Okay, say we’ve obliterated every stupid poor person on the face of the Earth, mulched their carcasses and used them as fertilizer. Then genetically engineered a race of aryan demi gods and goddesses to repopulate the planet. You know what we’d have in a few generations…?

A whole bunch of stupid poor ubermensches and a few rich educated ubermensches having the exact same conversation you’ve all just had.

Economics people, not genetics. Probability curves people, not innate inferiority.

#-o #-o #-o

Ahhh…I spoke too soon. Someone fell for it after all.

You had to use the word “fell”, didn’t you.

Go on then, explain, I’m all ears.

How can the OP be taken seriously? If Twiffy meant for it to be, I’ll eat my sock.

(Just in case, it’s simmering in chicken stock as we speak - not bad with some leeks and turnip.)

How about we start with you.

Okay - Twifster, c’mon, put us outta our collective miseries.

They do it with adoption and I think if we did not people would be up in arms. Though I can see reasons for a counter argument I also think that this could be a good idea. Neighbours of mine had children so that the council would give them a house… fantastic parenting

I actually think “reproduction licenses” would be a very good thing for society, socially-speaking of course.

The English used the same form of Eugenics against the Scots or whatever (think Braveheart).

If you can’t get the scumbags off your land, then breed them off. This crap happens all the time in history.

There are already more subtle & natural forms of Eugenics in display. For example, the idea that all females should be thin, voluptuous, and passive objects of immense beauty is a eugenic principle. It puts pressure on fat people to lose weight or ugly people to get make-overs otherwise (respectable) guys won’t fuck them. And it works too. However, I believe those mechanics are largely-biological and natural, no voodoo conspiracy theories at work there. Guys really don’t want to fuck ugly chicks (unless they have no choice). That’s the way it works. However, I’m sure there are many government programs that are actually at work behind the scenes, or even purely-business-industry related. In other words, how do we breed more conductive workers and slave drones for the future? I would go ask the people in charge of Amerika’s publick school systems. Somebody sets those programs up you know? They seem to know what they’re doing. Amerika modeled our 20th century school systems after the Germans’ method of propaganda and indoctrination. Next, we are going to reform them into more efficient indoctrination centers. Faust should be the headmaster of these schools. This idea should not be a big surprise to anybody shy of an idiot. If it makes you sad to think you’ve been raised to be a robot (because you are lower-middle class), then shed your tears and be done with it already.

The people in charge know what they’re doing. They have eyes, ears, etc. everywhere. The wealthy-elite pay money for this kind of information.

Arrgh. Metabolism is epigenetically set up according to maternal nutrition. Thin people can have obese kids and fat poeple can have thin kids.

And anyway. There are more fat women that thin women. Ergo, there are more babies produced by fat women than thin women. Despite any male aethetics involved.

Read the OP. “Stupid and poor people are out reproducing well off people” No-one batted an eye, it’s a self-evident truth.

now, remembering “stupid and poor” is unattractive. And that “fat” is also unattractive…

substitute “fat” for “stupid and poor” in the above sentence.

Duh.

Im sure Barack Obama is setting up the infrastructure right now for the project.

Go away Spider Joe, the “full quote and empty one-liner” routine is both space consuming and without utility.

You go away.

I was referring to Amerika, not the world in general. It depends on the context. Amerika does not represent the macrocosm well at all.

Besides, go into any major Amerikan city and you will see a good balance of fat & skinny people. It seems that the rural communities are hit the hardest by fatties. Maybe it’s just my perception. Maybe I’m wrong. But it seems to me that stupidity breeds fatties. Ugliness is pretty easy to point out. Males and females have fairly identifiable conceptions of what it means to be attractive or not. Guy: tall, strong, dark, handsome. Girl: short, delicate, light, beautiful. These occurrences are not hard to pinpoint (in Amerika).

And like I said, Amerika does not speak on behalf of the world in this way.

Besides, eugenics is largely a microcosm thing until Globalization completes itself.