D
Deleted member 1901
Fuchsia
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2022
- Posts
- 12,182
- Reputation
- 14,515
Eugenics has a bad reputation due to previous examples of implementations, but I see no reason it should be condemned, for it would not even need to involve any brutal measures such as sterilization or murder. It would not need to involve punishment of lesser beings; only reward to all willing to cooperate. I have a proposal: pay those of higher levels of intellect some amount of money per child they produce, whilst paying those of lower intellect to not have a certain amount of children. The amount of money payed per child could potentially be based on level of intelligence, although that would create perceived issues regarding “fairness”. Since most of the time, the couple having children would be married, and therefore share money, they would be motivated to select a partner of higher intelligence, thus further strengthening the objective of improving societal intelligence through the method of sexual selection in addition to the method of artificial selection. There should certainly be a limit to how many times having a child can give you money, otherwise you could become very rich by having a huge amount of children, which would be seen as outrageously unfair. Those of lower intellect could be payed more for each child they don’t have, for example they get payed x amount for having only one and y amount for having none. I see no moral issues with this system. The only reason one would think there be “moral issues” would be from a misconception due to the term “eugenics” and it’s association with previous programs. It’s simply a matter of being payed for this or that, whether you have children or not is still your choice entirely. There are some potential problems: some people (especially those of lower intellect) would be inclined to behave in rebellious manner, leading them to go against what they see the program is attempting to accomplish. Another problem is relating a specific part of this system, where the more your intellect deviates from the average, the more your pay to either have, or not have children is. The problem is that while the higher and lower intellects would have it fair, although in different ways, the average people would get less pay than the extremes. This would create an unfairness, and the fact that the average are the majority would be a huge problem. The alternative is that if you are even above average by any detectable amount, you would be payed the same amount as the genius per child. And if you were even any detectable amount below average, you would be payed the same amount per child not produced as the extreme idiot. This obviously creates a problem by limiting the effectiveness of this eugenics system, but also would have the functional problem of the ambiguity of those who are almost exactly average. The tests would vary if taken multiple times, so the dichotomy between “above-average” and “below average “ would be appear silly and be frustrating to those who were slightly below average. I think that this system could only be maintained if it seemed fair, which is unfortunate because this requirement of fairness limits it’s effectiveness to a large degree. I nonetheless believe it could be a massively powerful system. Another issue is the hypothetical situation of an intellect who wishes not to have children, and then decides to do poorly on the intellectual traits tests in order to qualify for payments for not having children. Another massive issue is that not all people are socially capable of having children, think us incels. Another issue is that a complex intelligence testing system would be required, for just something as simple as an IQ test would not be the perfect and most practical thing to base evolution on. But who would decide what or how qualities are tested for and are relevant? There are probably more issues as well. Anyway, why is eugenics necessary? Well, society is based on the animals running it. Why did we develop technologies like tool use or fire? Would primitive apes ever eventually develop those thing without modification of their genetics? Obviously those inventions were results of increased intelligence. Human nature dictates society, and intelligence is what is holding us back. Yes, other personality traits are obviously relevant, but intelligence is the most objectively “good” trait. Intelligence is the most efficient path to scientific and societal progress. We have just met the threshold that unlocks improvement of our species, and yet we ignore it? You really think society or science will ever develop after a certain point with a species which has a majority of idiots? Even the smartest man to have lived is no where near the evolutionary limit in intellect. What could be accomplished with this relatively simple system could be so extraordinary that we cannot comprehend the magnificence of our potential future. Why cope with “muh scientific developments, muh societal changes” when it is advancing intelligence that will inevitably cause every single aspect of existence to flourish without directly working on it? Eugenics MUST be implemented; it is our only practical solution and would be so simple if only there was collective agreement. Eugenics is the most efficient thing we can do to improve and enhance future lives, it is the only solution!
Last edited:
