Amarna Forum

A general thread for takes on Eugenics - what it means, clearing up misconceptions, and ways to accomplish it.

I want to begin by iterating the importance of the modern concept of race with regards to eugenics. As I understand it, what differentiates modern race science from earlier forms of 'racism' is its basis in the study of genetics. While earlier civilizations practiced in-group biases and were clearly able to demarcate those who were Like Them and those who were Different, this was usually done on a purely physiognomic basis: 'the large nosed, thick lipped nigger is obviously different than us, just look at him.' And in Ancient Cultures like Athens and Rome, cultures played a large factor in identifying who really was a Greek or a Roman. To be a Roman meant to partake in Roman Civilization, to be accultured to Rome's history and it's literary achievements and it's Pantheon of Gods, and so on. It is worth doing historical conceptual research on the topic, but it doesn't seem race as a concept arises until the Era of Enlightenment, with men like Immanuel Kant and Arthur de Gobineau in their attempts to scientifically classify the races of men on Earth, how the way they look correlates to the way they act, similarities between different peoples across the world, and so on. This is when they began to really think of these people as different in a way that went beyond matters of the soul, or matters of culture. But even Kant and Gobineau only have crude groupings to work with (White, Black, Yellow), and it isn't until Darwin and Mendel that "Eugenics" properly speaking kicks off. Before genetics, race science as it came to be practiced simply wasn't possible, and thus eugenics wasn't either. 

All of this is to say that while previous civilizations had laws regarding breeding and marriage, and certain exclusive practices, it would be a major misconception to call these practices "Eugenics." Ancient Athens had a law against marriage between an Athenian citizen and a foreigner beginning in ~450BC was to prevent infiltration of the Citizen-Body. They did not want members of rival city-states to have a way to gain access and influence into the Athenian world and undermine the society they had built there. This is akin to the modern conservative who is against open borders not to protect the white race, but because he doesn't think the people will 'really become American' if we let too many in, or believes they 'come from areas that don't value our freedoms.' It's a socio-cultural reasoning, not a racial one.

Similarly, Elite Intermarriage, which we see throughout history, is not eugenics. While some Monarchs did truly believe in their Divine Right of Kings, and that this might in some way flow through their blood (the willingness to overthrow one dynastic family for another makes me doubt this), the main purpose of Elite Intermarriage has always been the consolidation of Land and Money, as well as the formation of dynastic alliances. One Frankish Duke was not marrying off his daughter to another Frankish Duke in an effort to create a 6'5" Nordic Chad with 150IQ, often he was marrying off a half-wit son to an overweight sclerotic woman in the hopes they'd successfully birth a son who could go on to inherit the land of both lords. And modern day Elite Intermarriage is no different, despite what this popular poster believes:
  

Aside from maybe a few people (Jeffrey Epstein), the rich people in today's world are in no way practicing eugenics. They're oftentimes just rich people marrying other rich people; a guy who starts a tech startup in San Francisco marries some Indian girl he met in college at Stanford and they have a kid or two. In fact, a quote by is what originally inspired this thread:

Quote:I can't tell if it's genuine ignorance or being plain disingenuous but so many people conflate elite intermarriage with eugenics as if they're the same thing. Even the shitty Wikipedia page can rectify this belief, why do people like this persist?

So what really is eugenics then? It's the process of selective breeding combined with the insights from modern race science. To give an extreme example, let's discuss National Socialism and its beliefs on race. Put crudely for now, The Esoteric NatSocs believes that Germans were the descendants of a superior Aryan Race that had conquered much of the known world. But overtime, through the process of interbreeding, the Aryan Race had become greatly diluted, which had lead to the stagnation and degeneracy the German people saw all around them. Only a few people in the world still had any respectable amount of Aryan Blood, and it was their duty to wipe out the inferior races, stop the mixing of the higher races with the lower, promotion of Aryan-Aryan Marriage. This in turn would lead to a new Golden Age of the world. On a more basic level, what eugenics means is understanding that traits, whether good or bad, have their basis in genetics. The reason one man is deformed and another is naturally strong and handsome isn't due to some spiritual matter, or because he's cursed by the Gods, it's a result of genes passed on by the parents! Because we know that propensity for criminal acts are largely heritable, we can decrease the future crime rate by castrating (or otherwise infantilizing) perpetrators of violent crime! And because we know that intelligence is also an inherited trait, a State could (theoretically) prohibit those below a certain IQ score from breeding, or give subsidies to High IQ couples for having more kids. The possibilities of Eugenics are varied, but they are all predicated on the acceptance of modern race science. Once this has been accepted, there is a clear but crude path for how to create a better, smarter people; for how to eliminate the dysgenic and undesirables; and, more broadly, a path for how to breed for or breed out given traits within a political community.

While I find much of the wignat rhetoric around this disagreeable, the basic idea is easily implemented in a religious community via a celibate priesthood that's selected in the opposite manner as has historically been done by the Catholics (i.e. funneling in anyone in the population who can read, until a few hundred years later you have Ireland). The problem then would only be keeping this likely otherwise rowdy population well-mannered and under control, which would take thorough ingraining of self-policed spiritual principles (think a longhouse of eunuchs). From there this group can be as self-important and holy as they please, and very well could perform real social good in a community, as long as they're not allowed near any sort of power outside their cloisters. Monk has a much nicer ring than... what, untermensch? It's not sustainable to treat people in your society in such a way.

(04-07-2022, 03:09 AM)Opossum Wrote: [ -> ]While I find much of the wignat rhetoric around this disagreeable, the basic idea is easily implemented in a religious community via a celibate priesthood that's selected in the opposite manner as has historically been done by the Catholics (i.e. funneling in anyone in the population who can read, until a few hundred years later you have Ireland). The problem then would only be keeping this likely otherwise rowdy population well-mannered and under control, which would take thorough ingraining of self-policed spiritual principles (think a longhouse of eunuchs). From there this group can be as self-important and holy as they please, and very well could perform real social good in a community, as long as they're not allowed near any sort of power outside their cloisters. Monk has a much nicer ring than... what, untermensch? It's not sustainable to treat people in your society in such a way.

To some extent I think this was the case, dumping the unwanted into religious containment. Seems like a great way to dispose of fail-children, the shameful, misfits, etc. Aquinas went in against his family's wishes. How many families went extinct due to clerical callings? But then I guess on the other hand a general surplus of brighter boys who didn't have access to any other higher callings might have found themselves priests for a few centuries of European history.

Reading "It's not sustainable to treat people in your society in such a way." got me thinking, the only people our society really considers untermensch publicly are smarter than average white men who haven't been able to find a social niche. Probably a decent overlap with priest prospects of the past. A proper eugenic social structure would contain strong filters for lower humanity, and also aim to put up as few filters as possible for higher humanity. Our society fucks up horribly on both ends, with pretty much the whole planet being organised around the bottom half being fattened off the blood of the upper half. Building an acceptable life and conditions for a family as a higher human specimen is getting harder all the time under the weight of the concessions you're expected to give to people you have such an IQ gap on that you can't even talk to them.

Barriers to status, comfort, success, and families in the path of the 130IQ man are now a minefield. How many clever and sensitive men have to be written off out of our last couple of generations? Do you think programmer trannies were born cursed, or is every single one the result of a completely avoidable socialised mutilation of their spirits?

What I'm getting at here is basically, is there really a simple trick like monasteries for the dysgenic that can clean up humanity's future? I feel like real security would have to come with some disagreeable ideas. Probably in the form of aristocratic or caste-based order.

Agree that "monasteries for the dysgenic" would have to be part of a larger caste system, only that you're enabled to treat them kindly and maximize their social utility and sense of worth over the course of their non-reproducing lives. By "selection" I meant actual direct selection according to the masters of the gymnasium, not a freely-entered institution that's set up to appeal to such and such a type of person over another.

The key of eugenics is choosing a goal. What are you selecting for? A caste system isn't the be-all-end-all, especially if very stringent towards interbreeding. You eventually get India that way, a bunch of endogamous populations that try to fuck each other over. Plus, assortative breeding is basically a natural caste system, there is no reason for the state to codify it - it will only interfere with "the signal" and produce unintended results. Plus it causes specialization. Not a fan of the idea of entire races being formed based on occupation.

Historically, monasteries weren't really just for the dysgenic. A lot of intellectual activity took place, they needed smart people for this. A lot of monks were literally noblemen who found themselves on the wrong side of a civil war, and such.

Then we have the question of what exactly is genetic and whatnot. How many traits are automatically tied together in all cases, and so on and so forth. This complicates things.

My idea? Intra-racial eugenics, for a start. Not a fan of global racial cleansings solely for the purpose of genetic biodiversity. First on the chopping block would be "middling races" - mestizos, amerindians, middle easterners, indians etc. The final phase would be the hardest - niggers, but they're the only remaining "lower race" that hasn't been reduced to 3 people and a dog (looking at you, australoids) so they're the only ones who can actually have anything done with them.

The end result? Basically a much better, more functional world, as well as far lower racial tensions.

All of this can be done simultaneously - just pay the hood rats a sum of money to get sterilized. The biggest consequences would be felt within a generation

Right, I was hesitant to use the word "caste" rather than "class", which would be more accurate to what would be desired (free "social mobility" in terms of selection), but has a weird connotation. Genuine caste boundaries are only useful when you want to preserve but also keep separate, and that's really a different topic.

Re: "what are you selecting for", to some extent any sort of artificial selection is aesthetic, as, naturally, the people in a society will be adapted for the shape of that society. If you "need", say, intelligent people, then you'd better form a society that actually needs them. If you don't, you'll get something else. Artificial selection can be a boost, but can't take the place of this. In the long run nature will take its course and you'll reap what you sow, whether you saw it or not. Modern man is adapted for plastic and computers, and will continue to increase in this direction; a fancy dog show can't address this.

I don't see why modern race science or genetics is strictly necessary for eugenics. All that is needed is an understanding of heritability, which many people have had since ancient times, particularly animal breeding peoples. The Spartans, for example, practiced eugenics in this way, breeding for physical and martial prowess. I'd say a modern understanding of genetics makes it more efficient rather than being a categorical break.

There is also a more casual way of speaking about incidental eugenics like 'eugenic war' or 'eugenic economy'. I can understand if this is not considered true eugenics.

It's my opinion that a large society/nation should not adopt a eugenic program wholesale. Rather groups or sections of society should practice various breeding programs. A patchwork one could say, avoiding monoculture or the predominance of a singular type. Probably a sizable portion of society should be dedicated to the warrior type. A large portion should be free of all harsh and focused pressures. Other cults could emerge. All dysgenic policies should be halted of course, this is probably the most key and really the deliberate abolition of dysgenic policies is eugenics. This should not be a caste system and there should be flow of people between the various programs.

I agree with your latest post

So is this intra-racial genetics essentially whites breeding other races like captive animals for their own purposes? Or something that would be done by the race to itself, or would it be whites biologically uplifting other races for the other races/mutual benefit? Are you picturing this to happen within a single country?

(04-07-2022, 07:23 PM)Trep Wrote: [ -> ]I don't see why modern race science or genetics is strictly necessary for eugenics. All that is needed is an understanding of heritability, which many people have had since ancient times, particularly animal breeding peoples. The Spartans, for example, practiced eugenics in this way, breeding for physical and martial prowess. I'd say a modern understanding of genetics makes it more efficient rather than being a categorical break.

There is also a more casual way of speaking about incidental eugenics like 'eugenic war' or 'eugenic economy'. I can understand if this is not considered true eugenics.

This is a fair point. I'm aware that ancient peoples had an understanding of heritability and employed it in animal husbandry, there are even clear examples of this in the Bible (Genesis 30:40-43). And like you said, the Spartans partook in selective infanticide. I just find the methods used there, especially in the case of Spartan infanticide, to be rather crude. Here's an excerpt from Plutarch's Lykourgos which describes the process (sadly we've lost his sources):

Quote:"Offspring was not reared at the will of the father, but was taken and carried by him to a place called Lesche, where the elders of the tribes officially examined the infant, and if it was well-built and sturdy, they ordered the father to rear it...but if it was ill-born and deformed, they banished it to the so-called Apothetae, a chasm-like place at the foot of Mount Taygetus, in the conviction that the life of that which nature had not well equipped at the very beginning for health and strength, was of no advantage either to itself or the state."

What we have here is obviously a concerted effort to cull unhealthy members from Spartan society--because it was a warrior-based society, the one element they cared for was the appearance of physical well-being at birth. One thing it was lacking though was any element of forward-thinking; the babies who were found to be malnourished at birth were culled from the population, but there doesn't seem to have been an effort beyond this to produce a higher % of healthy babies, either by promoting marriage among the highest parts of society, or limiting procreation by the lowest members. It appears that, to the Spartans, deformed babies were a totally random occurrence beyond their control, just as the birth of exceptionally strong babies. But as you said probably doesn't constitute a real categorical break--this was still a form of eugenics, albeit crude, and the modern understanding of genetics allows us to do much, much more.

In my research I did find a few examples of a more explicit eugenics project in Plato and Aristotle as well. In The Republic Plato argues that Guardians should only marry among themselves, and during festivals a 'lottery system' should be put in place that would form temporary marriages, yet unbeknown to the participants the lottery would be rigged so that lower-tier guardians and the common classes would not be drawn to receive a mate, and higher-tier guardians were more likely to be selected. Similarly, Aristotle in Politics suggest that the State should regulate the birth rate of the poorer classes or else crime will get out of control (this is again crude, because no distinction is made to single out criminal elements in the lower classes and sterilize them alone). Of course, these where still only philosophical writings and as far as I'm aware they were not put into practice in any of the Ancient Greek city-states. Here's the paper where I found the information, it's a short read:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/27718142

At the beginning of the article it also has some good information regarding the initial definition of Eugenics, as well as Modern Eugenic practices, to show how they differ from what the Greeks practiced. The term "Eugenics," first coined by Francis Galton, was defined as

Quote:"The science of improving the inherited stock, not only by judicious matings, but by all other influences..."

Improving by judicious matings would include US Sterilization Laws passed throughout the 1930s that prevented the mentally insane, the feebleminded, habitual criminals, and moral perverts from procreating. In addition to this, the author cites that US States in the late 60s and early 70s required compulsory screenings for sickle-cell heterozygosity in the black population, and refusing to give out marriage license to those found with the sickle-cell trait. This is the sort of 'forward thinking' eugenics program that the Spartans lacked. 

Interestingly, the author of this paper notes that few programs were ever put in place to breed a more elite class of people though. The only case they found was in Germany under the leadership of The Great Painter!

Quote:"Only in Germany have recent attempts been made to 'breed' for an elite class. The Lebensborn state program of the Nazis established Lebensborn homes throughout Germany where SS men and suitable young Aryan women were encouraged to procreate."

I suppose eugenics basically either has to be practiced within a group, generally an aristocracy/proto-aristocracy, in which case they will just be the elite and attempt to improve themselves, or on a group, in which case the sovereign won't want to breed an elite to compete with itself, prioritizing eradicating criminality, improving productiveness.

Today I read Ancient Eugenics by A. G. Roper (whose name I like because it's both "a roper", "a groper", and very similar to "a groyper").

He claims that there was a penalty for "bad marriage" among the Spartans, but I'm not quite sure what that means. I think it may just be a sterile marriage.

He also quotes an interesting Theognis line that goes:

Quote:We seek well-bred rams and sheep and horses and one wishes to breed from these. Yet a good man is willing to marry an evil wife, if she bring him wealth: nor does a woman refuse to marry an evil husband who is rich. For men reverence money, and the good marry the evil, and the evil the good. Wealth has confounded the race.

Euripides expresses similar sentiments.

They seemed to have had a sense that human stock could degenerate do to poor marriage practices, and at one point Solon legislated against 'mercenary marriage'. They were also very conscious of the age when people should have children in order for the children to be the healthiest. This was at least one case of forward thinking to produce healthier offspring, albeit minor and not strictly genetic (though perhaps epigenetic), and I believe there were laws about this in both Athens and Sparta.

(I'm assuming those Galtons are related right?)

(04-07-2022, 07:23 PM)Trep Wrote: [ -> ] So is this intra-racial genetics essentially whites breeding other races like captive animals for their own purposes? Or something that would be done by the race to itself, or would it be whites biologically uplifting other races for the other races/mutual benefit? Are you picturing this to happen within a single country?

Sort of, yes. The approach differs from race to race. Differing values demand that this program be ran by a small, but global, cabal with a vision, for the same reasons why democracy is when a nation thinks with its ass. It would happen worldwide, not just a single country.

Basically uplifting. A permanent solution to their problems spilling into our turf over and over, but also allowing maximization of economic efficiency planet-wide, while keeping the necessary genetic and racial diversity as a backup in case of global disease, and whatnot. Miscegenation also becomes purely an issue of identity.

This would mostly be achieved via a global selection for IQ and some nonconformism. Aesthetics are mostly self-selecting anyway.

(04-08-2022, 12:55 AM)Trep Wrote: [ -> ]I suppose eugenics basically either has to be practiced within a group, generally an aristocracy/proto-aristocracy, in which case they will just be the elite and attempt to improve themselves, or on a group, in which case the sovereign won't want to breed an elite to compete with itself, prioritizing eradicating criminality, improving productiveness.

Today I read Ancient Eugenics by A. G. Roper (whose name I like because it's both "a roper", "a groper", and very similar to "a groyper").

He claims that there was a penalty for "bad marriage" among the Spartans, but I'm not quite sure what that means. I think it may just be a sterile marriage.

He also quotes an interesting Theognis line that goes:

Quote:We seek well-bred rams and sheep and horses and one wishes to breed from these. Yet a good man is willing to marry an evil wife, if she bring him wealth: nor does a woman refuse to marry an evil husband who is rich. For men reverence money, and the good marry the evil, and the evil the good. Wealth has confounded the race.

Euripides expresses similar sentiments.

They seemed to have had a sense that human stock could degenerate do to poor marriage practices, and at one point Solon legislated against 'mercenary marriage'. They were also very conscious of the age when people should have children in order for the children to be the healthiest. This was at least one case of forward thinking to produce healthier offspring, albeit minor and not strictly genetic (though perhaps epigenetic), and I believe there were laws about this in both Athens and Sparta.

(I'm assuming those Galtons are related right?)

Interestingly enough, the David J. Galton who wrote that jstor article actually has no relation to Sir Francis Galton. Even funnier is the fact that he's currently serving as the librarian for the Galton Institute, originally founded as the 'Eugenics Education Society' in 1907, whose currently listed aims are "to promote the public understanding of human heredity and to facilitate informed debate about the ethical issues raised by advances in reproductive technology." Just a great coincidence I guess.

As for the penalty against 'bad marriages,' I believe there was a law in Athens at one point that allowed for the annulment of marriages if they were unable to produce children in a given number of years, so this could well be what they were talking about.

A good point raised by is the necessity of an end goal for eugenics to select for. While you can certainly make an argument for eugenics based off of the decrease in birth defects alone, I think that sort of argument fails to capture the full scope of eugenics' potential as imagined in the various utopias of 19th century eugenicists. Eugenics was seen by progressives as the culmination of human progress, the final moment of self realization where man became aware of the forces that shaped him. As such, eugenics could produce a permanent break with history and bring about a true flowering of beauty and genius. While this is somewhat far fetched, I do think this is the ideal any eugenic state should strive towards.


The obvious question then becomes: how is this done? Fundamentally, I think the solution will have to involve the incubation of a new elite through rigorous meritocratic qualifications for entry into an empowered civil service, the tying of political rights with intelligence and physical health, the diversification of pathways in school in order to accommodate different inclinations and levels of intelligence and the encouragement of sterilization for the extremely unfit with certain state benefits or a cash sum as a reward. Society should be stratified by intelligence, with those in the top tier being especially encouraged to marry someone of their level (this however does not negate the fact that the general upliftment of the population is also a goal). Those in the top tier should also be provided more resources for projects they intend to work on, freeing them from material necessity in their intellectual pursuits.

(04-08-2022, 07:47 PM)Sharmat Wrote: [ -> ]Eugenics was seen by progressives as the culmination of human progress, the final moment of self realization where man became aware of the forces that shaped him. As such, eugenics could produce a permanent break with history and bring about a true flowering of beauty and genius. While this is somewhat far fetched, I do think this is the ideal any eugenic state should strive towards.

Strongly agree with this - though it is far-fetched, it seems to me that a Eugenics Program should take a long term approach to creating a new elite, and thereby creating this society of flowering beauty and genius. The inability of early eugenicists to decided on what factors they saw as superior was a major problem to the movement - Titans of Industry saw themselves as the obvious candidates for the future of mankind, as only a superior man could reach the power and wealth they had attained. In contrast, the academic eugenicists (social scientists and economists alike) were wary of the capitalist class, and saw such people as having a genetic anti-social streak that, if replicated to the population at large, would lead to the downfall of society. As the economist John Bates Clark put it,

Quote:In our worship of the survival of the fit under free natural selection we are sometimes in danger of forgetting that the conditions of the struggle fix the kind of fitness that shall come out of it; that survival in the prize ring means fitness for pugilism; not for bricklaying nor philanthropy; that survival in predatory competition is likely to mean something else than fitness for good and efficient production

Of course, this is before the time of IQ tests, and IQ was only coined in the early 1910s. It is my opinion that if we are to establish a STATE-run eugenics program, which could still work alongside private-sector genetic improvements, the State-Run Program should focus some general conception of "Intelligence" as the factor it wants to improve. We could cut through the minutiae that would only lead to infighting among different groups of elites by, as has said, "encouragement of sterilization for the extremely unfit with certain state benefits or a cash sum as a reward" and encouraging high-iq people to get married to one another. Once we start trying to select for more specific factors, I think the general popularity of a public program would begin to fall among the elite themselves.

That being said, it also seems to me that a proper eugenics program would have to include regulating adultery, most specifically female adultery and their uncanny ability to find the most dysgenic figures in our society attractive. As it stands, even in non-human species, the females are often sexually attracted to aspects that actually lower the possibility of survival.

Quote:In The Descent of Man, Darwin devised sexual selection to account for apparently maladaptive traits, such as the peacock’s outsized tail or the elk’s giant
antlers, which seemed to hinder rather than promote survival. Darwin argued that though the peacock’s unwieldy tail did indeed increase the risk of
the peacock not surviving to reproduce, it also, because of its power to attract peahens, conveyed a reproductive advantage.

Eugenic socialists of the feminist variety tried to argue that, free of restraint, women actually would pick the most intelligent male, who is most biologically capable of giving her strong, smart, healthy children, but I will defer to Jim's take on the matter instead. A Proper Eugenics program would require a properly running patriarchy
https://blog.reaction.la/culture/women-p...rape-them/

Quote:Indeed one of the primary functions of patriarchy is to overrule female choice so that pussy goes to males who are high status in the ostensible male hierarchy, rather than high status in the disturbing and hard to fathom way that women perceive status – so that pussy goes to high IQ prosocial, well behaved, brave and hard working males, rather than to the Jack Dawson character in the film “Titanic” – an unsuccessful musician with no apparent means of support, whose numerous real life equivalents live mostly by sponging off their numerous high IQ high socioeconomic status girlfriends, partly by folding sweaters, partly on welfare, and partly on burglary and drug dealing.

In addition to this state-run program, which less-statist, more libertarian types are weary of (and for good reason), the private sector could lead the way into more specific forms of gene editing, such as a married couple who want to ensure their child is born with blonde hair and blue eyes, has a low risk of heart disease, and so on. This would be the GATTACA-esque eugenic solution which I think people with money would happily pounce on once the procedures are made available. Eugenics along these lines seems like an inevitability; as soon as it's possible for wealthy parents to actively choose a smarter kid, or a more physically chad kid, they're going to jump on it. What parent wouldn't want their child to have every possible advantage to succeed? Even hesitant moralfags will quickly understand that you're only hurting your family by not going to the gene-editing-clinic when everyone else does: if you don't, you're child is going to have to somehow compete against scientifically-crafted Adonises. If private programs like this grow in demand, it might even be the case that people of middle-income will be able to afford some kind of benefits: maybe the child of middle-managers won't be an Adonis, but they might be able to afford the certainty of 20/20 vision, no massive physical deformities, and so on.

---

Will add that one of the reasons I'm against only supporting Private-Sector Eugenics programs is that it does nothing to actually better society as whole, and it could even allow an unhealthy number of dysgenic people to congregate in urban centers. As we've seen, unless order is strictly enforced, the dysgenic hordes inevitably begin to push their claims on society. So while private-sector eugenics might create an elite class of demi-gods, that's all it does. It would be my hope that a proper eugenics program would uplift the polity as a whole, though the extent to which different social groups are uplifted need not be equal. We need not shell out and give poors the best gene-editing equipment, but it would do the whole society a favor if criminals and retards were sterilized. As we see today in the West, the richest people in a country are very willing to allow middle-class people suffer among these types as it doesn't really effect them, they have their gated-mansions and private security forces that protect them. Meanwhile, white-collar professionals still have to deal with homeless retards shooting up in store bathrooms and accosting them on the streets. A State's unwillingness to deal with these people only pushes the cost they bear onto other law-abiding citizens, and I see it as a national duty to prevent other hard-working white people from having to deal with such people just because the State doesn't want to get its hand's dirty.

Good points . I imagine that the high costs are at least partly related to how new the technology is, and probably because it's only being used by a handful of people. It's possible that as CRISPR technology becomes more widespread, those could go down, but until then (and that might be a long time coming), it would indeed be difficult to get the State to do it. The High-Tech eugenics options are obviously rather costly, and I guess for the foreseeable future those will have to be developed and utilized by private companies. Of course, it would also be good if the government began to give out more research grants to students wishing to study the human engineering projects. 

In the meantime I do think it would be much cheaper to engage in weeding out bad traits. As Sharmat said, the government could engage in a voluntary program wherein certain citizens would be given the option to be sterilized in exchange for cash payments. I sincerely believe there are many nogs out there who would happily be willing to get 'Free Birth Control For Life!' in exchange for some weed and sneakers. Whatever the cost might be for these medical operations, the benefits reaped in future generations would make it worthwhile. Beyond just applying this to racial minorities on a voluntary basis, I think it should be applied to repeat criminals, non-voluntarily. Twin studies and adoption studies have shown that there's a strong genetic influence in matters of property crime, violent crime, and alcoholism. While it's never possible to catch all criminals, and it would be too costly to round up every alcoholic, repeat offenders represent the worst of the worst. The people too stupid to not get caught, and also too stupid to stop once they've been caught once or twice. Such people are genetic dead ends, and it's only Just that the government give them a *snip.*

Unrelated matter: Here's a summary of an Edward Ross speech that he gave to reporters after speaking at a meeting for organized labor regarding Asian immigration to the US in the late19th/early20th century. Ross was a major figure in the American Progressive movement, a noted eugenicist, sociologist. He also coined the term race suicide and is considered one of the 'founders of criminology.'

This could just as well have been said by any conservative politician in the West this century. Apparently, in the speech described, Ross also stated that

Quote:And should the worst come to the worst it would be better for us if we were to turn our guns upon every vessel bringing Japanese to our shores rather than to permit them to land

The polar opposite of faggoty Italians who do everything they can to bring Africans ashore and get them citizenship in their country.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but accelerated evolution is already possible with embryo selection. Extract and fertilize a number of embryos, then take placental cells from each of them and estimate IQ, testosterone, mutational load, and big five traits. The only missing ingredients are some of those GWAS studies, which shouldn’t be too hard, and someone with the balls to just do eugenics. Hsu appears to not be the guy. He sounds a bit cucked and naive, unless it’s all a ploy.

Waiting for CRISPR is pure COPE when we already have the technology to do this and no one is doing it. CRISPR may never happen! There is a time for abstract science and there is a time for using that abstract science, but theoryposters just want to move onto the next thing instead of growing balls and taking action.

Quote:In addition to this state-run program, which less-statist, more libertarian types are weary of (and for good reason), the private sector could lead the way into more specific forms of gene editing, such as a married couple who want to ensure their child is born with blonde hair and blue eyes, has a low risk of heart disease, and so on. This would be the GATTACA-esque eugenic solution which I think people with money would happily pounce on once the procedures are made available. Eugenics along these lines seems like an inevitability; as soon as it's possible for wealthy parents to actively choose a smarter kid, or a more physically chad kid, they're going to jump on it. What parent wouldn't want their child to have every possible advantage to succeed? Even hesitant moralfags will quickly understand that you're only hurting your family by not going to the gene-editing-clinic when everyone else does: if you don't, you're child is going to have to somehow compete against scientifically-crafted Adonises. If private programs like this grow in demand, it might even be the case that people of middle-income will be able to afford some kind of benefits: maybe the child of middle-managers won't be an Adonis, but they might be able to afford the certainty of 20/20 vision, no massive physical deformities, and so on.

I'm very wary of this type of eugenics if I'm being honest, I feel like its just going to be gatekeeped from the vast majority of people through high prices and will be relegated to the production of designer babies for hollywood celebrities. Instead of a general increase in intelligence and health, we'd have hefty time and resources devoted to making sure Kim Kardashians next mulatto baby has green eyes or something of the sort. While I would not mind purely cosmetic changes being handled by the private sector, I think practical improvements should at least be partially subsidized by the state. Any nation that takes the potential of guided evolution seriously will become a superpower, especially in countries with high quality human capital to begin with. Letting that opportunity go is just a shame.

CRISPR, embryo selection and so on and so forth is still far, far away from actual large scale application. You want to maximize the amount of people with an IQ above 105, a roughshod pen and paper intelligence-personality test to determine ability is enough

Further issues include that a lot of traits are polygenic, and might be iffy, plus we aren't sure for some things, what is actually genetic, and what isn't. Therefore, doing it the good ol' fashioned way of eliminating the most dysfunctional will do for the time being

Most of my amateur research was lost with my Twitter account- but, I had a few things to add to this conversation. Chief among them- I don't believe eugenics is an answer to the current crisis (rule by corrupt incompetents), but will be required after this phase is passed thru.

1. Eugenics as a program should probably be defined strictly as improvement of a single race, or gene pool with limited distance. Foreign bodies (Africans, assorted MENA biotrash), aren't subject to 'eugenics' under this definition. The correct implementation of state violence against these populations as exogenous, competing groups would be War. The tools could be varied, the means could be negative or positive eugenics- but the force acts on a genetic group, and acts as a scientific endeavor separate from war against exogenous groups.

2. Eugenics as a program can only be undertaken by a State/corporate body that has absolute authority. There is no authority now that can make claims of what are preferred genetic and social traits- so, the tools of abortion have been left to the individual. Wanton, at-will-of-mother abortion is NOT eugenic. There are no selection criteria aside from the whims of the mother (which can be easily influenced), and there is no authority that can properly make the call on the prospective genetic quality. Instead of a system with say, a 60% determined success rate, you have a roulette that kills the sons and daughters of, under other conditions, what could have been good quality genetic materiel.

3. Eugenics as a program can only be undertaken by pure scientists- people who are interested solely in the improving of the human condition, who don't have alien racial priors. Eugenics as a wider discipline (especially early eugenics) brought in scientists involved in various biological fields. Paul Popenoe was an ichthyologist- and the early movement involved botanists, statisticians, paleontologists, and others. This kind of cross-disciplinary involvement would be a requirement for a 21st Century eugenics movement. As a practice, the concept of 'eugenics' spans roughly 60 years, from Galton's book 'Essays on Eugenics', to the changing of the name of the AES in 1972 to "Society for the Study of Social Biology" under the supervision of a Jew, Alan Frank Guttmacher. Abortion as well was introduced by the Jew, Margaret Sanger. However, abortion was NOT the tool used by early Eugenicists. The earliest tool used was NOT post-conception abortion, it was STERILIZATION according to scientific measurement of the aptitude of potential parents. Check Bell vs Buck for the first instance of shitlib whinging over the practice. The Jewish need for particulars to be swept under the rug will be a constant thorn in the side of any Eugenic movement. Only members of the race to be improved can be involved in any serious capacity.

Interesting. I predict with the institution of such a system, every race/population would start their own due to rules of competition in a cascading effect. End result, probably total speciation of the races, and perhaps, depending on the level of application - if it's ethnic groups, and not the whole race, the divergence of into more races