Do you support eugenics?

I think he said he was talented, not famous. Vincent didn't sell hardly a painting while he lived.

 

So, what?

Most people don't have artistic talent, like I do.

What? Maybe 1% of society, or less can paint like I do?

 

I never said anybody is not allowed to have kids, as I pointed out in comment #9 we should have a sliding tax scale to reward intelligent, law abiding citizens, and vice versa for dumb, criminals.

I think over generations, we'd see a vast improvement in our society, with such implications.

- - - Updated - - -

Like William Shockley?

 

Okay, let me rephrase that. Do I get taxed for having children?

 

Unfortunately, really smart folks don't tend to have many kids. Einstein had an illegitimate daughter. Shockley . . .?

 

YOU posted this?????????????

this is YOUR Youtube page?

 

Yes, that's my YouTube page.

 

That's funny. You'd think smart people would know, from an evolutionary viewpoint, that having more children is good. More children means more smart people right? If we follow the logic that smarter people also tend to have jobs that earn higher wages, we come to the conclusion that smart people can also afford to have more children. Hmmmm.....what is wrong with this picture?

 

I think that's tragic, we could be so much more as Humans.

 

My IQ is 146. By your logic, I should be making your breeding choices for you and yours. Careful what you wish for, the Law of Unintended Consequences is always waiting to be applied...

 

Lol, everyone online says their IQ is 145ish, hard to believe that's true though.

Besides, I have no problem with people more intelligent than I am being promoted to have more kids.

 

That's 145-ish. Hard to believe you're even breaking 100 by what I've seen on this thread.

 

totally shocks me that you would actually post this.

 

Way to insult the World by the way, because the World average IQ is about 90, and the IQ average of the U.S.A is about 98. (Although that's partly because Blacks, and Hispanics bring down the IQ of the U.S.A)

 

OK. I'll sign on to eugenics with you and will agitate for your demise. If I'm persuasive and enough agree with me will you accept your fate?

 

If you've read carefully, I've never advocated bringing on anyone's demise.

Also eugenics is just a philosophy which promotes improving genetic quality, that also doesn't inherently advocate bringing on anyone's demise either.

But, as I mentioned before, one can kill for Capitalist greed, or Communist equality, and that's "Cool" but God forbid if people want to improve genetic quality.

Wow, so many posters here are clearly advocating for eugenics, because they keep proving why Humanity needs to be more intelligent.

 

Oh my goodness. And I guess you would set the standards to go by....

 

What's the standard that we have now?

To allow the dumb to have as many kids as they like at societies expense, by propping up their kids by using government programs?

Wow, what a good standard. LOL sure.

 

Depends on how velvet the glove and iron the fist I suppose. Nuking India just to thin the population some might be a little overkill. Giving someone a bump in retirement benefits because they never had children or made it through their adult lives without ever needing to draw unemployment or welfare benefits might be a more reasoned approach. Carrots are generally more acceptable than sticks.

 

I've outlined in comment #9 how I'd implement such a plan, which wouldn't be an iron fist at all really, unless you think a sliding tax scale for having children based on merit is some how an iron fist?
(Which I'm sure many Liberals would think)

But, why nuke India, or anyone?

Indians might score rather lower IQ scores , but they're also rather peaceful.

Now, Africans on the other hand................

Well, I don't support nuking Africans either, they deserve a right to exist in their homelands too.

 

It makes no difference to me what you want, propose, or write, I've already decided your lineage is the one to be destroyed in order to promote my philosophical outlook regarding eugenics and the most direct way to ensure that comes about is your destruction.

 

There is no benefit in taxing low IQ people for having kids because they are probably on benefits anyway. As for India, eugenics would we pointless if we do not better allocate resources and a billion peaceful people are a billion resource depleters.

 

Some 'people' are merely a lower form of life. Fact! They are a waste of space and of the earth's resources, and the world would be a better place without them. Another fact!

 

I support eugenics, in a limited fashion. It would need some safeguards to prevent it from expanding into too many categories, but I think it could be done and would be highly fruitful.

By using financial incentives to discourage reproduction among the stupid or congenitally defective, we could offer cash incentives for women to get IUD's.

Here is my proposal:

Offer any woman of prime, child-bearing age who has a demonstrably low IQ or low income a cash incentive to get an IUD. There are different ways you can measure fitness, but the point is that you establish some basic, meaningful criteria--low IQ would be excellent.

In summary:

1. Mandatory IUD's for women on welfare.
2. Cash incentives to receive IUD's for those with demonstrable cognitive deficiencies.
3. Cash incentives for women who live in households in which they are taking in more than they are receiving, in terms of tax returns. If you can't pay taxes, you don't get to ask others to take care of your kids.

I would also like to encourage those with greater fitness to reproduce. Women with degrees or IQ's over 100 would get much larger tax credits for having children, as well as free childcare.

 

It's not about selecting for high IQ, which is less useful and riskier, as much as it is about preventing the exceptionally stupid or incompetent from reproducing. I think it's more than reasonable to set the number somewhere around 85. I'm sorry, but a person who can't score higher than an 85 on an IQ test should not be having kids. I've taken the WAIS, and I can tell you that an 85 is very low. The average person could score an 85 while drunk lol.

IQ becomes less useful as a metric the further above 100 it gets, but it is very useful for IQ's below 100. All kinds of negative outcomes are associated with low IQ, and very reliably I might add.

To be fair, everyone of those is highly correlated with G and, to an extent, all of them seek to measure it, so I wouldn't use those as examples.

I think we need to distinguish between serious crimes, habitual criminality, and other forms of criminal behavior. If you tried to eliminate people with any ounce of rebellion from the gene pool, you would end up with a bunch of passive sheep, which would be worse than what we have now. There are many traits associated with criminality that are actually beneficial in certain contexts, and you wouldn't want to eliminate those. We might even end up like East Asians, who are passive, easily cowed, and generally lack creativity or significant amounts of individualism. I've long suspected that East Asian cultural norms, particularly in China, have created genetic differences that are partially responsible for many of the negative behavior patterns we see in China. Well, that it isn't to say they are all negative, but they've gone to far in the direction of being like ants. Even Asian Americans with white parents have these traits, and they aren't always good.

Low intelligence, as measured by IQ tests, is a reliable predictor of many negative outcomes that are harmful to society, more so than any of the other factors you mentioned. We choose IQ for the sake of convenience and general applicability, not because we don't care about the other things. Also, as Potrafi suggested, many positive traits are negatively associated with low IQ, so we aren't in serious danger of hurting the gene pool by reducing the number of people with IQ's south of 85.

I agree with this. Only the most unambiguous cases should involve eugenic policies.

Again, the important thing is that he is taking care of himself and not running around killing people. Eugenics mainly applies to the exceptionally dull, not people on the margins of intelligence or competency in life.

These are really good! I like the dark-skinned woman a lot, as well as many of the city scenes. On another note, I think you might have also been a good linemen in football lol.

The point is that we are trying to prevent people from using collective resources to procreate when they can't even take care of themselves. We are trying to reverse the democratic policy of incentivizing the stupid to procreate.

It's hilarious. There might be one person on the entire website, or none at all, with an IQ that is actually that high. My verbal IQ is that high, but my non verbal IQ (performance IQ) is only about 111, so I end up balancing out at 127 on the WAIS III.