Catholic Eugenics?

[ribozyme]

How does** increasing** human misery by the methods they advocate decrease human misery?

How does denying the humanity of many humans, and tightly controlling the rest in a totalitarian system that would make Hitler and Stalin salavate decrease human misery?

I do not advocate eugenics currently because Richard Lynn failed to assuage my fears that it will exacerbate social inequality.

Possibly, embryo selection will eventually be adopted by 80 percent to 90 percent of the population and will stabilize at this level. The remaining 20 percent of babies will continue to be conceived by sexual intercourse. These would be born largely to couples of low intelligence and psychopathic personality who conceive by accident by accident and do not have their unplanned pregnancies terminated.

When this point is reached, two populations will diverge genetically. A gulf will open up between the embryo-selected children and the “unplanned,” as those conceived by sexual intercourse may come to be known. If, as seems probably, the parents of the unplanned come from the bottom 10 percent to 20 percent of the population for intelligence, their mean IQ would be around 80 and the mean IQs of their children would be around 84. The remaining 80 percent to 90 percent of the population who had their children by embryo selection would have a mean IQ of about 110. By using embryo selection they could have children with IQs 15 points higher than their own, giving their children a mean IQ of 125. Thus, in the first generation there would be a difference of around 40 IQ points between the average IQ of the embryo-selected and that of the unplanned… Thus, in the second generation the intelligence gap between the embryo selected and the unplanned would increase from around 40 IQ points to around 55 IQ points. This would give the embryo-selected children a huge advantage in schools, colleges, occupations, and incomes…

This will lead to the emergence of a caste society containing to genetically differentiated castes - the embryo-selected and the unplanned. (Lynn, 2001: 288-289)

 

[vern_humphrey]

I do not advocate eugenics currently because Richard Lynn failed to assuage my fears that it will exacerbate social inequality.

Of course it will. How can it not?

After all, eugenics is based on the idea that some people are fundamentally inferior. Even if the government never prevented a single person from reproducing, even if a single human embryo were not killed, the mere acceptance of that idea would do incalculable harm.

 

[ribozyme]

Of course it will. How can it not?

After all, eugenics is based on the idea that some people are fundamentally inferior. Even if the government never prevented a single person from reproducing, even if a single human embryo were not killed, the mere acceptance of that idea would do incalculable harm.

Well, I always thought it would be beneficial to decrease inequality by enhancing ability, but I suppose we can also do that by submitting to the authority of the Handicapper General.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Well, I always thought it would be beneficial to decrease inequality by enhancing ability, but I suppose we can also do that by submitting to the authority of the Handicapper General.

I’ve read it.

The point is, you don’t help people by degrading them. And that’s what eugenics does. It is the philosophy of inequality.

 

[ribozyme]

Of course it will. How can it not?

After all, eugenics is based on the idea that some people are fundamentally inferior. Even if the government never prevented a single person from reproducing, even if a single human embryo were not killed, the mere acceptance of that idea would do incalculable harm.

That is the facet of eugenics that I find the most repugnant, and Richard Lynn’s book is based on this critical assumption.

 

[sanctamaria17]

As someone with a family history of mental illness and whose relatives were murdered at the hands of eugenicists (Nazis, because they were Jewish), I find the whole concept offensive. Also, the idea that “that’s the reason they’re impoverished” is a bunch of BS. Both sides of my family have fought hard and succeeded in overcoming poverty.

Only God knows what each human is capable of and everyone has something to offer. Every day, we see people beat amazing odds and overcome the most challenging obstacles. Things are changing for those with all kinds of disabilities as well, mental and physical. And it does not matter what race you are, when it comes to intelligence. My best friend, who’s African American, is extremely intelligent, as are my Puerto Rican friends. Skin color and ethnic background don’t determine IQ points.

Who are we to judge someone as inferior? Wouldn’t that be a grave insult to Our Lord, who created us in His image?

 

[vern_humphrey]

That is the facet of eugenics that I find the most repugnant, and Richard Lynn’s book is based on this critical assumption.

And the whole clique is obsessed with the idea that they are attacked because they aren’t poltiically correct.

I recommend the believers in eugenics join the American Kennel Club – they have fads there, you know. One year, the dog to have is a cocker spaniel, the next year a Saint Bernard. And when the AKC focusses in on a breed, that breed is ruined. Cocker spaniels become overbred and snappish, Saint Barnards have hip dysplasia bred into them and so on.

Man’s idea of the perfect dog, it appears, is not God’s idea.

 

[ribozyme]

As someone with a family history of mental illness and whose relatives were murdered at the hands of eugenicists (Nazis, because they were Jewish), I find the whole concept offensive. Also, the idea that “that’s the reason they’re impoverished” is a bunch of BS. Both sides of my family have fought hard and succeeded in overcoming poverty.

Only God knows what each human is capable of and everyone has something to offer. Every day, we see people beat amazing odds and overcome the most challenging obstacles. Things are changing for those with all kinds of disabilities as well, mental and physical. And it does not matter what race you are, when it comes to intelligence. My best friend, who’s African American, is extremely intelligent, as are my Puerto Rican friends. Skin color and ethnic background don’t determine IQ points.

Who are we to judge someone as inferior? Wouldn’t that be a grave insult to Our Lord, who created us in His image?

I will reiterate a previous post in this thread:

you know that she believes that these embryos have the right to live because God endowed them with an immortal soul. Since it is likely you are an atheist, you are not willing to accept that argument.

So what’s the difference between your perception (and Richard Lynn’s perception) and Jennifer and Dave’s views on the moral status of the embryos? The former views the discarded embryos as vectors of defective genes that should be eliminated from the gene pool; the latter sees them as unique individuals created in the image of God. Since the former does not believe in God, their views are mutually incompatible with the latter.

I disliked reading The Bell Curve because it dehumanized those who have low intelligences are carriers of “defective genes” and a hereditary threat to society because they can pass their “defective genes” to future generations. *The Bell Curve *is an assault on the concept of human dignity.

 

[Larry1700]

How does** increasing** human misery by the methods they advocate decrease human misery?

How does denying the humanity of many humans, and tightly controlling the rest in a totalitarian system that would make Hitler and Stalin salavate decrease human misery?

Simple. It decreases the misery of those in power, because they don’t have to see the misery of those who aren’t.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Simple. It decreases the misery of those in power, because they don’t have to see the misery of those who aren’t.

But how will they feel when they have no one to look down on anymore?

 

[ribozyme]

But how will they feel when they have no one to look down on anymore?

What’s that supposed to mean? Since I am an egalitarian extremist, I prefer a society where this is not possible.

 

[Jennifer123]

And the whole clique is obsessed with the idea that they are attacked because they aren’t poltiically correct.

I recommend the believers in eugenics join the American Kennel Club – they have fads there, you know. One year, the dog to have is a cocker spaniel, the next year a Saint Bernard. And when the AKC focusses in on a breed, that breed is ruined. Cocker spaniels become overbred and snappish, Saint Barnards have hip dysplasia bred into them and so on.

Man’s idea of the perfect dog, it appears, is not God’s idea.

People of high IQ are disproportionately affected by mental illness, and mental illness in many cases is tied to creativity.

It’s also well known that if you want a smart dog, you gotta get a mutt from the pound.

 

[vern_humphrey]

What’s that supposed to mean? Since I am an egalitarian extremist, I prefer a society where this is not possible.

Can one truly be an egalitarian – of any stripe, let along an extremist – and still believe there are some people who are not equal – who should be bred out of existance?

 

[vern_humphrey]

People of high IQ are disproportionately affected by mental illness, and mental illness in many cases is tied to creativity.

It’s also well known that if you want a smart dog, you gotta get a mutt from the pound.

Mother Nature knows better than man what makes a good dog – or a good human.

 

[Academic]

Academic,

It just dawned on me. Even if you convince family, friends, government, the AMA, etc. that your “basic set of mental properties” to define personhood is valid, you might still have a problem when your own mental capacity falls below that standard. Consensus opinion often changes with the times, and laws aren’t set in stone forever, either. Therefore 20, 30, 40 years from now, there might be someone in a position to determine your value as a person who might disagree with your standard.

Heck, maybe a group from another medical discipline, such as endocrinologists, might determine that neuroscience is an inferior discipline, and that people who believe in the principles of neuroscience are mentally inferior, and should not be allowed to procreate.

But, if you get a free trip to a deserted island, it just might be worth it.

I’m thankful for all reactions to my postings, but you don’t always read carefully what I say. This, for example, is straw man argumentation. I already pointed out that there are strong reasons to say that people who loose their mental life through illness or accident still have full moral rights. A major difference is that these people (unlike embryos) once were persons, and thus will have strong emotional ties with friends and loved ones, who will never be able to cease to regard them as the persons they once were. For similar reasons, there would also be undesirable social sideeffects from regarding coma victims as non-persons.

 

[Academic]

Why would a scientist use such a poll? I note that all your “authorities” seem to be a little paranoid, obsessing on “my critics” and majoritiy opinions and how someone said “Boo” to them and so on.

It’s not uncommon at all in science that you try to clarify where we have consensus and where we have controversy. Of course, everyone is aware of that in the end the only relevant question is: what is the simplest model that gives a good explanation of all the data, viewed as a whole. But if we are dealing with complicated issues where people give different relative weights to different pieces of evidence, a poll is informative.

And in this case, I believe one of Gottfredson’s intentions was to demonstrate - in relation to the genetics of intelligence and group differences in particular - the huge difference between professional opinions and the way the question is handled in media directed towards the general public. In fact, the poll gives considerable support to what I have been saying here.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I’m thankful for all reactions to my postings, but you don’t always read carefully what I say. This, for example, is straw man argumentation. I already pointed out that there are strong reasons to say that people who loose their mental life through illness or accident still have full moral rights. A major difference is that these people (unlike embryos) once were persons, and thus will have strong emotional ties with friends and loved ones, who will never be able to cease to regard them as the persons they once were. For similar reasons, there would also be undesirable social sideeffects from regarding coma victims as non-persons.

You don’t see the flaw in that?

Once you accept the principle that any living human being can be declared a non-person (yes, even an embryo) there are no limits to who can be declared a non-person. **Today **you may not declare a person in a coma as a non-person, but tomorrow is another day.

Your reasoning destroys the concept of human rights completely – they are not longer rights, but mere priviliges, revocable at will.

 

[Academic]

You not only deny that human rights exist for “fertilized cells” but for all mankind.

That’s a vulgar lie. Where did I ever say that?

My views on eugenics are surely “controversial” or at least shared by few. But what I said about human rights is completely mainstream - it’s your views that are extreme. All I’ve been saying is that in vitro fertilized embryos can’t be compared to human beings ethically speaking. Most informed people agree.

 

[vern_humphrey]

It’s not uncommon at all in science that you try to clarify where we have consensus and where we have controversy. Of course, everyone is aware of that in the end the only relevant question is: what is the simplest model that gives a good explanation of all the data, viewed as a whole. But if we are dealing with complicated issues where people give different relative weights to different pieces of evidence, a poll is informative.

And in this case, I believe one of Gottfredson’s intentions was to demonstrate - in relation to the genetics of intelligence and group differences in particular - the huge difference between professional opinions and the way the question is handled in media directed towards the general public. In fact, the poll gives considerable support to what I have been saying here.

I’ve read his writings and those of his supporters – the intent seems to me more like that of a little boy in a schoolyard saying, “Nyah, nyah, these people agree with me!”

In fact, there seems to be a heavy emphasis on the vertical pronoun in his work and a general aroma of paranoia in the whole clique.

 

[Academic]

You don’t see the flaw in that?

Once you accept the principle that any living human being can be declared a non-person (yes, even an embryo) there are no limits to who can be declared a non-person. **Today **you may not declare a person in a coma as a non-person, but tomorrow is another day.

I mean, this is just a bizarre statement: We have to state that all objects have property X, because if we admit that one object lacks property X then tomorrow someone might say that all objects lack property X. What are you smoking my friend?