Eugenics/Intellectual Discrimination (1 Viewer)

[moll.]

You identify a major problem with your proposal just there.

The intelligence of the population is not evenly distributed with income, so even if it is weighted towards the high income side (whether by correlation or causation it doesn't matter) it will not be very fair or effective. Then you try and patch it up with these case-by-case exceptions, which would use so much tax money to process any net benefit would cease to exist.

I feel you know your idea is faulty in many aspects yet you're just arguing for the sake of it.

Very well spotted.
It was only an idea in the first place, no more. But there's no harm in discussing it, is there?
But the idea is not just from an economics viewpoint (although that does play a big part). It is also from a Darwinian viewpoint, as dysgenics or devolution is not good for humanity as a whole and it's progression.

 

[veloc1ty]

It is also from a Darwinian viewpoint, as dysgenics or devolution is not good for humanity as a whole and it's progression.

I haven't bothered researching it but I wouldn't be surprised if we're no dumber than 5,000 years ago (and in fact smarter in many respects) and we just feel depressed by the frequent idiocy showcased by now-ubiquitous media outlets.

 

[moll.]

I haven't bothered researching it but I wouldn't be surprised if we're no dumber than 5,000 years ago (and in fact smarter in many respects) and we just feel depressed by the frequent idiocy showcased by now-ubiquitous media outlets.

Well no, we're not dumber than 5,000 years ago, because 5,000 years ago we didn't have universal healthcare.
We didn't have welfare payments.
We didn't have workplace rights.
We didn't have social security.
We didn't have tolerance for people who are mentally challenged.
We didn't have warning labels on everything.
We didn't have the baby bonus.
We didn't have contraception.

Instead, try to look 5,000 years into the future. All these things help keep alive those who otherwise wouldn't have survived. Because of contraception, most smart (and maybe affluent? lol) people only replace themselves and have two kids. They can stop having more than that now.
Meanwhile, those of the lowest socio-economic background (and hence mostly less bright) don't bother. They have way more kids than rich people, and slowly start to outnumber them. This continues at an expontential rate, until the whole world is at their level.
Read this: www.wikipedia.org/Idiocracy

 

[veloc1ty]

Overpopulation itself is another problem - why not implement a one-child policy nationally rather than targeting those of low socio-economic background? Then money can be spent on education for those who need it.

Interestingly, my local paper had an article just today on possible link of baby bonus to new birth pattern (the Wyong area has a lower socio-economic index rating than the national average, by the way).

 

[HalcyonSky]

hey meranie where u been ive missed your posts

 

[moll.]

There are a few things wrong with this:
1. How do we determine or 'test' every single person's intelligence?
2. How can we truly tell if this test is a true measurement of a persons intelligence. There are still some falls with the IQ testing system
3.Where do we draw the line to who is intelligent and who is not?
4. How to we enforce the people this act. Noting that enforcement will require resources and a whole lot of money. Furthermore it is unethical at this present moment. Who to say who has the right to reproduce and who doesnt.

It is also unethical because it is assuming that only intelligent people have the right to live. It is also assuming that the purpose of living is to be intelligent. Other people have other gifts too which may not require intelligence e.g. competitive basketball. I propose that only competitive basketball players are allowed to reproduce so that we have the best basketball players.

1. We either go by generalisations in statistics or by an IQ test if you really want.
2. We can't. That's why we allow case-by-case exceptions.
3. We don't. We draw the line by who can afford another child or not. If they're dumb but want to pay, then by all means, pay. Obviously that couple really wants a child and will thus treasure said child.
4. We fine them. It's kinda hard to hide a baby. Especially if you go to the hospital to have it delivered.

It's not assuming that only intelligent people have the right to live, it's assuming that only intelligent people have enough money to have a child.
And oh, what a great loss to society it would be if there were no more competitive basketball players. Leaving out the fact that many of these players are rich and could afford to have the child anyway, so the sport really wouldn't suffer.

Ethics are derived from the equality of (human) rights. We should all have the right to reproduce. And that is that!

No, modern ethics are derived from equality of humanity. But like i said, ethics are malleable and frequently change.

 

[midifile]

Overpopulation itself is another problem - why not implement a one-child policy nationally rather than targeting those of low socio-economic background? Then money can be spent on education for those who need it.

Interestingly, my local paper had an article just today on possible link of baby bonus to new birth pattern (the Wyong area has a lower socio-economic index rating than the national average, by the way).

Anyone who has a baby specifically for the $5000 baby bonus is a moron.

 

[moll.]

Overpopulation itself is another problem - why not implement a one-child policy nationally rather than targeting those of low socio-economic background? Then money can be spent on education for those who need it.

Well there's the other option.
And it solves two problems at once.
Do what China does and fine people for having an extra child. The rich (who i am still generalising as being intelligent) would be able to bear the costs, whilst the poor wouldn't.

Interestingly, my local paper had an article just today on possible link of baby bonus to new birth pattern (the Wyong area has a lower socio-economic index rating than the national average, by the way).

See?
Dysgenics is already happening.
The end is nigh! Repent! Repent!

 

[moll.]

Anyone who has a baby specifically for the $5000 baby bonus is a moron.

My point precisely.

 

[midifile]

Well there's the other option.
And it solves two problems at once.
Do what China does and fine people for having an extra child. The rich (who i am still generalising as being intelligent) would be able to bear the costs, whilst the poor wouldn't.

Although you cant ignore the consequences of the Chinese one child policy - The thousands of girls who were abondoned after birth, when parents wanted boys.

Of course your 'idea' is different, but you are neglecting to think about the possible consequences of the implementation of such a policy

 

[moll.]

Although you cant ignore the consequences of the Chinese one child policy - The thousands of girls who were abondoned after birth, when parents wanted boys.

Of course your 'idea' is different, but you are neglecting to think about the possible consequences of the implementation of such a policy

True, but people in the West have better access to contraception than in China, and our police force is also vastly more capable at finding these people.
Perhaps only a reasonable fine, rather than an excessive one? Many peasants in China wouldn't be able to afford the fine and wouldn't have access to loans or anything.

EDIT: And there's not as much discrimination against having a female child in the West as there is in China.

 

[nikolas]

Hi I'm Evolution


DONT F@!$ING TELL ME HOW TO DO MY JOB!!!!!!!111!

 

[moll.]

Hahaha the poll's tied at 50-50
So it would appear that BoS is a haven for intellectual elitists and immoral discriminators.

 

[sonyaleeisapixi]

that and psuedo intellects

 

[moll.]

Can't blame them from trying though.

 

[moll.]

this is an educational website. i wouldve expected the results to be somewhat higher. also youd think that those who would be in favour of it or in risoles words those who are "intellectual elitists" would have the logic to see that it is close to impossible to apply in practice properly because of the reasons ive stated before.

for more information -
http://community.boredofstudies.org/showpost.php?p=3841020&postcount=50

I ain't risole, meranie.
And the poll is asking for an opinion, not for voters to start campaigning for their choice.
And now the "agreed" are out in front.

 

[sonyaleeisapixi]

I think if you read back, all that agree with the proposal also acknowledge the moral and ethical concerns surrounding the issue, and identify some of their own.

 

[moll.]

and you would think that they would use some sort of logic and morality in there opinion particularly if they classify themselves as "intellectual elitist"

Morality doesn't come with intelligence. Which should be obvious enough just from the topic of the thread.

 

[moll.]

http://www.jstor.org/pss/1135627

I read the title. Cbf after that.
A better understanding of the world and the repercussions that result from your actions comes with intelligence, but such a concept is vastly different to morality itself. It is simply the fear and acknowledgment of the costs of any "immoral" action, and the realisation that they far outweigh the benefits, that stops an intelligent person from committing "immoral" crimes where a dumb person would, due to their limited vision and understanding. If there were no costs and we lived in an anarchic society, then intelligence would matter little in morality.
This is not true morality, this is simply outward, or "perceived", morality. Inwardly, an intelligent person may be revelling in as much imagined immorality as a common thug.

 

[moll.]

I know that they are different but one is more likely to lead to the other. Basically what the book is saying is that they did an experiment where they concluded that the "relation and intellect in restricted groups is clearly direct".

I just explained this. It's not real morality, it's simply a better understanding of the repercussions.