I’ve learned that if one stays on this board long enough nearly everything comes up. We’ve had a suggestion that we “nuke” Mecca and the use of the word “miscegenation” and now the word “eugenics” pops up.



According to The New Oxford American Dictionary, 2005:



Francis Galton

I would suggest that Social Darwinism was a form of eugenics. The Englishman William Graham Sumner and his American disciple Herbert Spencer are two advocates.

William Graham Sumner

Herbert Spencer

Then there was Adolph Hitler’s attempt to create a master race.

The German Master Race

Questions for debate:

1. Is “eugenics” a valid concept in contemporary thought and science?

2. Is the insistence by Pat Buchanan and some on this board that ethnic minorities assimilate into European cultural stock, a form of eugenics?

1. No. Neither is phrenology.
2. No. Neither is a St. Patrick's Day Parade. In fact, the best and brightest tend to "get" why "When in Rome..." is more than a catchy phrase. If you decide to go live in France/Denmark/Germany/etc you'd bloody well learn to speak the language, know the customs and not honor kill your daughter for walking unaccompanied with a man.

1. Is “eugenics” a valid concept in contemporary thought and science?

I think we can all agree that it is not valid, at least in anything at all resembling the way that the word has been used in previous times. The only thing that I can think of in the modern world that even remotely resembles eugenics, and which has some degree of validity, is the proper use of genetic counseling when people are considering having children. If you know that you have a high probability of producing a child with severe disabilities, you will probably think twice about reproducing. I don't think we have much of an ethical problem with this kind of individual, voluntary eugenics.

The only other situation I can imagine where some sort of involuntary eugenics might be justified is when a person is very severely mentally incapacitated, and incapable of even remotely being responsible for sexual behavior, contraception, or child care. (To put it more clearly, it might be an act of mercy to sterilize a woman who has the mind of an infant.) The question to ask in cases of involuntary eugenics is not whether it benefits society, but whether it benefits the individual.

2. Is the insistence by Pat Buchanan and some on this board that ethnic minorities assimilate into European cultural stock, a form of eugenics?

As much as I disagree with the ideas of Pat Buchanan, I think that calling it eugenics is a poor metaphor. Instead, I might call it something like cultural purity. Clearly, there are some aspects of other cultures which cannot be tolerated in a free society. As BaphometsAdvocate has pointed out, honor killings cannot be allowed. In such cases, it is evident that some aspects of other cultures are evil, and will be prevented if possible, and punished by law. However, it is easy to go too far to the other extreme, as Pat Buchanan does, and insist that all aspects of the dominant culture are inherently superior to others. As in so many things, one needs balance.

why, BoF, your forgot to mention the most influential advocate of eugenics ever to walk American soil, Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood.

Some suggested reading:

Global Warming Theory and the Eugenics Precedent

The first 6 paragraphs deal with the "science" of eugenics.

1. Is “eugenics” a valid concept in contemporary thought and science?
Abortion on demand for any reason whatsoever is practical eugenics. China's 1 Child Policy is practical eugenics. Human genome mapping can easily support eugenics. The recent flurry of concern by homosexuals over the "gay sheep" research demonstrates that eugenics thinking is still alive. The deliberate attempts at "designer babies" in fertility clinics is practical eugenics. All of these are morally indefensible. So the question becomes, what do you mean by "valid"?

2. Is the insistence by Pat Buchanan and some on this board that ethnic minorities assimilate into European cultural stock, a form of eugenics?
No, because the call by Buchanan is one of cultural assimilation. Only those who are attempting to denigrate Buchanan along with others who oppose multi-culturalism, describe Buchanan's call as "a form of eugenics."

The problem is that Rome – our Rome – is fluid, ever evolving. It isn’t what it was 230 years ago and it won’t be the same in the future as it is now.



One does not have to denigrate Pat Buchanan. He does a pretty good job of self-denigration. One can just feel the hatred oozing off the pages in a section of chapter 4 - State of Emergency - he entitles “Mexifornia," a rather bad parody on the state of California. It is an attempt at cuteness, but comes off mean spirited and vicious. There are those who lap this up like fresh comb honey, but to me it smacks more of a substance that generally offends the olfactory nerve.

Let's go over these one at a time to see if they are morally defensible.

Abortion on demand for any reason whatsoever -- I would only allow it for "any reason whatsoever" during the very early stages of pregnancy. Only extreme circumstances can justify abortion during the very late stages of pregnancy. We are in partial agreement.

China's 1 Child Policy -- I absolutely agree with you about this one.

Human genome mapping -- This project, in and of itself, increases our knowledge, which is always a good thing. I can't agree with you about this one. Low-budget monster movies to the contrary, I do not believe that "there were things that Man [sic] was not meant to know."

The recent flurry of concern by homosexuals over the "gay sheep" research -- I'm not familiar with this situation, so I'll pass. It's hard for me to see how the research can be bad, though. I have no idea what the "concern" might be.

The deliberate attempts at "designer babies" in fertility clinics -- I'm not clear what you mean. The possibility of using genetic therapy to ensure that infants are born without devastating birth defects seems like a good thing to me. Attempts to select certain traits over other traits -- blue eyes or whatever -- is more problematic.

1. Is “eugenics” a valid concept in contemporary thought and science?

It's animal husbandry for humans, which means that it can't work and is thus invalid, or to make this very clear, wrong.

It might work if a superior alien race were to come down and figure out that humans need more breast meat, similar to what we've done with chickens. Hormones might be used, as might genetic engineering. Meanwhile, one group of humans trying to establish superiority over another group has, historically, not been a stable situation. Kings of the hill go tumbling down. It's gravity.

Human superiority is an illusion. Alexander the Great wasn't all that great, as he got what Simon the Simple got in the end, and it doesn't matter whether anyone wrote books about either guy. The worms still got fed.

That Hitler ate a bullet is significant to this point. Eugenics is wrong because it cannot work (without alien invasion from Outer Space, gee whiz).

2. Is the insistence by Pat Buchanan and some on this board that ethnic minorities assimilate into European cultural stock, a form of eugenics?

No, it's a form of non-sequitur, as in the conclusion doesn't follow the underlying observations. I've read some of Buchanan's books, and non-sequitur is his modus operandi. He strings together irrefutable facts and comes up with a basketball instead of a fabric, then bounces it through a hoop way off there to the right side of the court, leaving me with a string of irrefutable facts and a missing basketball. It's not a very satisfying experience. Had he left the basketball, it would have been funny.

This shows that good writing and high intelligence don't necessarily go together. Pat's a great wordsmith and researcher, but he's not in the same league as great writers. I at first thought this was due to dishonesty, but no. It's just the way he is. He really believes there's a culture war going on, as does his brother in arms, O'Reilly. There are strong parallels with the two personalities, but Pat honestly believes while I have no doubt that Bill does not. Then there's Barack Obama, who believes something completely different.

There are problems with how the global economy is working out, but it has nothing to do with ethnicity. It has everything to do with how the global economy is working out. Tied to this is a drag on creativity in this country, possibly due to poor leadership, probably due to the concentration of wealth and a culture of fear that keeps the human spirit down. The fear is palatable because it's real and encouraged. Good for sales.

Yet some people, some outfits, aren't fearful and move straight ahead into the future. Ethnicity has nothing to do with this, courage does and the stubborn attitude that things will get better.

And so, it doesn't follow. There's no human husbandry that needs to be done. Some of us are born with different equipment than others, and what seems like a handicap to the average Joe might just be the stimulus to do something worth writing. I've seen it happen. It follows. Alexander did things worth writing, while Simon did the writing. (That's metaphor. Her name might have been Marge.)

Then there's the challenge as to whether we'll take care of those needing care, or what might be termed compassion. That follows, the notion that it's a challenge.

Well. We all live in the same world, yet the interpretations of what's going on swing widely, don't they. But it's the same world. Some things work, some do not, and some have no effect or affect whatsoever. One might even call this a puzzle or maze to get through, and who's to say who does better than the next fella? That's pretty subjective, who is Great and who is Simple.

So the superior alien race comes down from Outer Space (gee whiz) and determines that the human race needs genetic engineering to get rid of non-sequiturs. Where does that leaved Pat and Bill? No more fat royalty checks, or better works of literature?

As for assimilation into culture, that takes generations, and by gosh if the culture doesn't change that's supposed to be the goal of assimilation. What might be called mainstream US culture does not resemble mainstream European culture, and what the heck is mainstream US culture anyway? Wal*Mart? Are we defined by cheap, foreign-made socks? If so, is this worthy of our concern?

This follows: No. And this follows: There's something wrong with people who are concerned. Does that mean we should breed the wrongness out?

Naw. We've tolerated these types all along, and we'll tolerate them forever. It's part of the diversity training that's part of the puzzle. Cheap socks from Wal*Mart is not our definition. Walking on the Moon, that's closer. Redesigning humanity isn't; redefining is.

Eugenics is wrong because it concentrates on the physical. That's not our greatest strength; that's not how we got from the trees to the Moon. It wasn't cheap socks either, had nothing to do with physical strength and everything to do with the human spirit. Plus opposed thumbs. Those work Great, and they're so Simple!

Of course it is. Just because a field of thought gets twisted by a madman like Hitler does not mean it is not “valid”. Anyone who reads the science press knows how important genes are in determining numerous characteristics of us all.


Earlier proposed means of achieving these goals focused on selective breeding, while modern ones focus on prenatal testing and screening, genetic counseling, birth control, in vitro fertilization, and genetic engineering. Opponents argue that eugenics is immoral and is based on, or is itself, pseudoscience. Historically, eugenics has been used as a justification for coercive state-sponsored discrimination and human rights violations, such as forced sterilization of persons with genetic defects, the killing of the institutionalized and, in some cases, genocide of races perceived as inferior.

Selective breeding of human beings was suggested at least as far back as Plato, but the modern field and term was first formulated by Sir Francis Galton in 1865, drawing on the recent work of his cousin Charles Darwin. From its inception eugenics was supported by prominent thinkers, including Alexander Graham Bell, George Bernard Shaw, and Winston Churchill. Eugenics was an academic discipline at many colleges and universities. Its scientific reputation started to tumble in the 1930s, a time when Ernst Rüdin began incorporating eugenic rhetoric into the racial policies of Nazi Germany. After the postwar period, both the public and the scientific community generally associated eugenics with Nazi abuses, which included enforced racial hygiene, human e http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics xperimentation, and the extermination of undesired population groups.”

It is well known that many “talents” run in families. The Nobel Sperm bank is well known and even though it is gone other similar sperm banks go on. Virtually all sperm backs and the people who use them practice eugenics.

Genius Sperm Bank Information
Genius sperm banks select sperm donors based mainly on achievements and genetic quality rather than based solely on sperm donor appearance, race, and sperm quality. They cater to clients who want to improve the intelligence of their child by selecting a sperm donor of superior intelligence and outstanding achievements. The following is a list of achiever and genius sperm banks and other sperm sources of which the author is aware.
________________________________________
List of Genius Sperm Banks and other Sperm Sources
The following is a list of genius sperm banks and other sperm sources.
• The following individuals claim to be high-achievers and are offering their sperm vials on the internet
o http://www.freevials.com
• Several traditional sperm banks have some sperm donors with advanced university degrees and allow you to search their donor catalogs by educational achievement, or at least show the education and profession of the donor. Examples of such sperm banks are
o Fairfax Cryobank
• The Repository for Germinal Choice in Escondido, California, was a sperm bank which selected sperm donors based mainly on scientific achievements and publications, and also on other criteria such as artistic and musical ability and various health criteria. In their earlier days, they had several Nobel prize winning sperm donors. Unfortunately, the Repository for Germinal Choice has closed.
http://www.geniusspermbank.com/
Is this “right or wrong”. IMO this is an individual decision.
“


No. He is speaking more of cultural assimilation I believe.

“There are 3 main ways by which the methods of eugenics can be applied. They are:
• mandatory eugenics, which is forced upon people by a government
• promotional voluntary eugenics, in which eugenics is voluntarily practiced and promoted to the general populace, but not forced onto people
• private eugenics, which is practiced voluntarily by individuals and groups, but not promoted to the general populace
There are also different goals of eugenics.[4] They are:
• intrinsic eugenics, which seeks to exclusively improve a person's genetic traits that are intrinsicly beneficial or detrimental to them, such as physical health, mental health, attractiveness, reproductive ability, physical aptitude, intelligence, and self-control
• racial eugenics, which emphasizes selectively breeding a specific race or races
• extrinsic social eugenics, which selectively breeds people that have high social status and the genetic traits thereof, such as wealth, attendance at popular colleges, college degrees, popularity, extroversion, personality, and humour

In the world of IT we'd tell you that:
And so you too must "evolve", "roll with the punches" and generally "buck up, little buddy."

Since I introduced both of these words, "miscegenation" and "eugenics", I thought I should add some background and a comment.

As to "miscegenation", there were laws in the US that dictated your status in society based on race, and race was determined as a percentage of one's background versus pure caucasian stock. This had to do in the early days with slave status and value as a slave, and in later days miscegenation laws prohibited inbreeding between persons with certain racial backgrounds.

I used the term in another thread in the context that people like Tiger Woods, who is to my knowledge half black and half Thai, are still called "black" or "African American" in this country. Tiger could just as easily be called Asian, or something else altogether, when referring to his ethnicity. I suggested this reality derived from the miscegenation laws, even though long since revoked, in that persons even today characterize one to be "black" if one has any black stock. This is doubly odd in that black Americans seem to do it the most, as if they want to "claim" partially black but successful people as their own.

As to "eugenics", I used it in the context of marriage laws. Why should the state have any say about whom I marry? Why should the state sanction marriage at all? So many people in the debate over homosexual marriage, on both sides, discuss marriage from the standpoint of social utility, utility for the nuture of children, etc. I don't see where the state should have any say in these matters. To look at marriage from this standpoint could easily lead to a policy of eugenics, or other social engineering concepts, when what we SHOULD want, at least in the US, is freedom FROM social engineering, and freedom to live as we please, subject, of course, to strong sense of personal responsibility for our actions and how they affect others, these being the principles on which the nation was founded.

With this background, does eugenics have a place in our society? Absolutely not.

As for Buchanan's contention that persons should try to fit into the culture here when they immigrate, it makes perfect sense and has nothing to do with eugenics. Culture and country are based upon common touchstones, language being one of the most important. If one nation has several predominant languages, then it is likely to be disunified and contentious--just look at Canadians, who have so much in common, but have still nearly split into two nations several times mainly because of the French language--English language divide.

If you wish to have a strong, united nation, then it helps to have common cultural touchstones. In fact, the existence of these touchstones in a geographic area generally precipitate the formation of the nation in the first instance.

1. Is “eugenics” a valid concept in contemporary thought and science?

Modern eugenics, now called "human genetic engineering research" (gene therapy, trait-selective in vitro fertilization, etc.) are currently funded to the tune of billions, if not trillions, of American dollars. With a few exceptions, modern forms of eugenics are not illegal. In fact, supporting cloning and testing of human embryos and embryonic human stem cells is a relatively popular political movement. So long as the intent of eugenics is to improve health, many Americans have no compunction against it.

The distateful connotations of human husbandry (classical eugenics) is a relatively recent taboo that was not very widespread before WWII. The upper classes prided themselves on their superiority due to their "breeding", which originally referred to the children of "great men" marrying one another to produce even "greater" heirs. The upper crust of most European societies rarely married entirely on the basis of love, but based also on desirable heredity. They also practiced human husbandry among their servants and slaves, breeding them for traits they felt most desirable for a working class. By the Victorian era, the connotations of "breeding" had become more about manners and education than genetics, partially fueled by society's growing collective remorse for the evils of slavery, including slave husbandry.

I personally abhor eugenics in all its forms, including those with growing popular support for health research. It's great that we can map the human genome and use that information to develop new treatments for the suffering; but we should also avoid allowing such ends to justify using eugenics as the means.

2. Is the insistence by Pat Buchanan and some on this board that ethnic minorities assimilate into European cultural stock, a form of eugenics?

To my knowledge, Pat Buchanan does not suggest that there is a genetic element to culture; otherwise, he would refer to it as "ethnicity" instead of "culture". Pat Buchanan is wrong about many things, but he is nowhere near being a Klansman like Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV).

If I recall, Buchanan asserts that there is a traditional "American Way" which immigrant and citizens were once expected to adopt, and which visiting foreigners were expected to respect while on American soil. Buchanan may go too far in asserting that ethnic diversity tends to jeopardize the tradtional American culture, and thus undermines the validity of his other arguments. While I understand that he was trying to assert that American unity can be undermined by large communities of people being able to become American citizens without participating in American culture, he should have left ethnicity out if it if he wanted to be taken seriously.

The American Way includes the English language, general democratic-republican federal government, human rights, responsible freedoms, and respect for the ideas in Christ's Sermon on the Mount (truth, justice, generosity, mercy, compassion, tolerance, patience, kindness, etc.) usually deemed unobjectionable by all religions and peaceful non-religious philosophies. Buchanan was probably wrong if he took ethnic and religious tolerance out of that formula, but to my knowledge, he did not go so far as to promote the breeding or engineering of a genetically superior white European master race, so I don't think eugenics really applies to his assertions.