Anders wrote
> It was different between different nations, but many of the eugenics
> proponents did lobby for various government initiatives that in many
> cases amounted to force. The sterilization programs in the US and
> various european nations were one result, for example.
This thinking is not as extinct as some might think. A judge recently
demanded that a certain man who kept fathering children and then not
paying child support desist from his procreative activities. Ultimately,
IMO, it's who pays the bills that should have the choices. As for
compulsory sterilization (or hospitalization), I really do have mixed
feelings about the following: a small community has on its hands
someone who can't or won't support himself, and lies about on main
street annoying the productive citizens who pass by (who find that
they must feed him to keep him alive, and wear earmuffs to keep his
insane shouting from driving them nuts). Now does this small community
have a right to (i.e., do the people reading this agree that it's okay)
to seize this person, hospitalize him, and even sterilize him? As a
member of a small, rather isolated community typical of many in the
history books, I would cautiously endorse such actions.
> > I recall the right-wing William Shockley proposing that we pay
> > $1000 per I.Q. point below 100 to people to not have children.
> > If I had a real nation, and I cared about whether it prospered
> > in a competitive world, I think that I'd go along with his
> > proposal!
> Would you allow immigration? Think about it. And how do you make sure
> people with < 100 IQ don't cheat on the tests to get lower scores?
Well, this is a huge *IF*, but *if* I had a real nation, and cared
about whether it itself prospered and thrived in a competitive
world, then the only immigrants that I'd allow were those of the
same cultural background as my own people, and who would seemlessly
fit in, without fracturing the society into different groups.
If so many people cheat that it's a problem, well, then over time we
obviously select against such people! :-) Yes, I know that this
might take too long, and these arguments are moot in the light of
the transcendental technological advances almost bound to be made
by any people who reach the first stages of industrialization. But
speaking purely theoretically, if our patriots were so intent on
getting ten or twenty thousand dollars once in their life that they'd
forego reproduction, then that's fine.
> Seriously, the idea is of course rather pointless because the
> heritability of intelligence is not that strong and the generation time
> of humans is long, so when you would get your genetic change outside
> factors such as intelligence amplification would likely be far larger
> than any genetic benefits. Not to mention the issues whether high IQ
> really helps a nation better than free trade or an open society.
High IQ in most historical epochs would definitely help a society,
but yes, perhaps not so much as free trade and openness do.
> Not to mention the ethical problems with a government using tax
> money to reward lack of intelligence.
The funds could be raised voluntarily. In the 20th century it's hard
for us to appreciate doing things without a strong government, but
every time that Benjamin Franklin or others in his city wanted any
community projects undertaken, thing done, they'd go around door to
door getting "subscriptions". In most cases, that's how things
should be done. Freedom has worked very well, every time it's been
tried, so far as I know.
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:13 MDT