Hello IPCUSA,
    As mentioned in the cheesemind post just now, eugenics has 
gotten a very bad name, due to association with the nazis and other 
abusers of the science. Early surgeons, refused to wash their hands 
even after the microbe theory of infection existed. Even after 
dissecting cadavers, surgeons would operate, delivery babies etc. 
with unwashed hands, with the results being death rates around 50% 
from infection, even for minor surgery. Even recently in the USSR, 
women and their infants were subjected to dangerous fungal 
infections through regressive policies of concentration of mothersw 
and their offspring in small spaces (maternity wards). So much so, 
that for some years, mortality rates in newborn infants were lower 
with home deliveries than with maternity ward deliveries. Medical 
malpractie does nto mean medicine itself is flawed or evil, anything 
can be abused, misused, or done incompetently. 
       That is, just because a science has been done incompetently, 
does not make it invalid. Humans, due to medicines and technology, 
no longer have genetic pressures upon them they had before. This 
leads to the proliferation of "undesirable" genes, such as inability 
to give live birth unassisted, poor vision, painful disabling even 
deadly heredtiary disease etc..
       In modern eugenics, "undesriable" genes can be spliced out of 
fertilised eggs, not reduced by sterilisation programs. 
      In sound biologhical management, it is the maintanance of 
diversity that is to be achieved, and the reduction of the 
proliferation of "undesirable" genes. False nazi and other false 
eugenics, had it exactly backwards, thinking that reduced human 
genetic diversity was the goal (they were lousy biologists and 
population theorists, blinded by their own inherent biases). 
    Is it the right, of someone with disabling genes, to spread 
those genes in the human gene pool as much as they like? Or should 
people with highly undesirable genes, be limited to one or two 
children, with mandatory sterilisation or gene therapy following 
those one or two natural births? Is it a crime upon future 
generations, to allow the frequency of genes which will disable, 
imapitr, and cause them to suffer, to increase in the human gene 
pool? 
   Currently, the more "fit" humans, breed less than the less "fit" 
humans, on average, and "unfit" genes often are not weeded out by 
evolutionary pressures, as before medicine and technology. The long 
term result is obvious, humans will become weak, with poor vision, 
of dimished intellectual capacity, unable to have natural lvie 
births etc., with time. Is this a sound philosophy? It is not that 
any genes are actually mroe or less fit, it is that no group of 
genes should be allowed to increase over time in human populations, 
especially if they cause disability and human suffering or illness.
       A key here is correctly understand which genes are truly 
undesirable or unfit, in case they should increase in frequencies 
int eh human gene pool. For example, mental diseases, while maybe 
being unfit for the individual expressing them (at least in 
societies which demand conformity), or undesirable for totalitarian 
societies, exist in human populations, for exactly the reason that 
they confer fitness upon the populations which carry such genes 
(much like sickle cell anemia double recessive genes incur fitness 
on populations where there is malaria). To give an example, bully 
tyrants, causing their "subjects" to suffer, might stay in place if 
we did not have "psychotics" in our gene pools to assasinate them, 
or if we are more civilised, to resist them by peaceful and 
democratic means. Altruism, is a form of psychotic behaviour, yet 
while harming the altruisitic individual, it benefits society as a 
whole (genes are nto always selfish, they can be altruisitic also, 
this can be udnerstood even by mathematical models).  
      Advanced eugenics science should not outlaw natural 
reproduction entirely for anyone (everyone should be able to have at 
least one or two natural children, only one if they have really 
nasty genes that cause lots of human suffering). Advanced Eugenics 
should seek to preserve human diversity as much as possible. 
Advanced eugenics should seek to protect human gene pools not from 
old genes, but from new genes, or increasing frequencies of 
undesirable or unfit genes. New mutant genes should even be allowed 
in, for innovations, but not allowed to proliferate too much, 
especially if seen as deleterious. This relates a lot not only to 
natural mutations, but to influxes of artificial genes or genomes 
into feral human populations, such things should be restricted, but 
not eliminated completely. 
That is, eugenics, for the general population, should be to keep 
things as they are mostly, not to alter them. Without any eugenics 
at all, humans will not stay as they were 400 years ago, they will 
become degenerates, weak minded, nearly blind, physically weak, and 
vulnerable to disease. Though they may make highly suitable slaves, 
they will not create the sorts of civilisations most of us now 
admire, though ants might admire them. 
    The reason why human populations will decline genetically, is 
because "good" genes usually require "energy". When organisms no 
longer need genes to be fit, if they require energy to maintain 
those genes, an evolutionary law is those genes will be shed over 
time. Very good vision, high intellect, artistry, athletic ability, 
many of the things we value in ourselves, require energy to maintain 
as genetic and memetic packages. If they incur no fitness (usually 
the opposite now, such genes become unfit because people with them 
tend to be less fertile by choice now, with athletes being the 
exception), then those gene and meme complexes will slowly decline 
in human populations, without eugenics and social vitalisation (such 
as through education and flourishing of the sceinces, arts, and 
atheletics via social encouragement and interest). Even the genes of 
athletes will be diluted, with very high survival and birth rates 
for physically weak persons. 
     I am well aware being a "eugenicist" now, will be taken by the 
ignorant off handedly,  as a sign of being in some way evil, 
politically aberrant, misguided etc.. Among advanced biologists now, 
who understand these issues, most of us are eugenecits, even if we 
lack the guts to admit it publicly. If human populations are to have 
medicine and social welfare, then they should also have eugenics, as 
medicine and social welfare without eugenics, will lead to steady 
increases in human suffering, and steady losses in average human 
ability. Eugernics should be seen as a part of medicine, to maintain 
human health, not seen as some psychotic nazi plot to create 
superhumans to conquer the World. 
    Genetic programs to create "stronger" (people better able to 
kill, disable, or control other people) scientists, police, and 
soldiers, that is not eugenics, that is the development of human 
weapons, it is a branch of weapons science, whereas eugneics is a 
branch of medicine. Breeding pit bulls is not the same thing as 
breeding dogs to be good and intelligent human companions. Of course 
humans can be selectively bred, gentically altered, or enhanced, to 
be better killers and societal controllers, but do such programs 
actually confer increased fitness upon humanity as a whole? I 
seriously doub this is the case, such programs increase our capacity 
to kill and enslave eachother, they incur lower fitness on our 
species, not higher, they increase the chances for human extinction, 
they do not lower it.
     Sound eugenics lowers the chances of extinction, and increases 
or maintains genetic and cultural diversity. Sound eugencis causes 
people to maintain their current levels of health and happiness, or 
reaccomplish higher past levels of heatlh and happiness. 
     A lot of the problem here, is that 19th century false ideas 
about evolution, often get into sciences such as eugenics or "social 
Darwinism" (which was used to justify intentional starvation of the 
Irish by some of the English in power and in control of Irish grain 
production as English Land Lords during the potato famine). This 
ultimately comes from biblical notions of higher and lower life 
forms, such as man being high, and maggots being low, or pigs.
     In modern biology, there are no higher or lower life forms, and 
in stable environments, no more or less fit organisms. Evolution is 
the adaptation to change in the environment in modern biology, not a 
driving engine to go to some "higher" state of life. If our 
environment changes, so we no longer need to be heatlhy, happy, 
clever, strong, creative, have keen senses, to reproduce ourselves,
then we will adapt to our new environment, by sheeding the genes we 
have for these qualities, as they require energy and evolutionary 
pressure to maintain. In a stable environment, things remain the 
same genetically, and evolutionary pressure maintains the genes as 
they are. Without evolutionary pressure, the gene pools willnot be 
maintained as they are, and in our eyes, they will "decline" 
      The public often thinks of our ancestors as inherently stupid, 
or lower life forms, "cave men". The race of Cro Magnon man, and the 
subspecies of Homo sapiens neandertalis, actually in both cases, had 
larger average brain size compared to modern humans, keener senses, 
probably had much higher average linguistic skills than modern 
humans, better craftspeople (some could do stitches no human now is 
dextrous enough to do), were better athletes (they would sweep the 
Olympics if still around). Why the decline? Such genes, and culture, 
require energy to maintain. With mdoern tools such as throwing 
spears, social specialisation, we just do not need to be so adept 
any more to be genetically fit to reproduce. Without eugenics, as a 
branch of medicine to maintain human diversity and skills, human 
populations will continue the current trends, lower average 
intellect, physical abilities, dexterity, lower average ability to 
resist disease etc.. Our cultural and genetic diversity will also be 
reduced, in biology, this is a danger sign for possible extinction. 
       On the issue of race and ethnicity, yes, the races and 
ethnicities should be maintained, in the interest of good human 
biological management. Should all gene flow be stopped between races 
and cultures? Of course not, we are races, not seperate species, and 
there have been high rates of gene flow between the different human 
races for all of history. Even American Indians, were much less 
genetically isolated before Colombus, from other races, than many 
have falsely assumed (at the end of the Tang dynasty there was a 
major Chinese influx into Central America for example, there is 
archeologuical proof of this now, Africans also settled into the 
Americas well before Colombus). Races, like species, only require 
restricted rates of gene flow to be maintained. But unlike species, 
is it more healthy for races to have high levels of gene flow with 
other races. 
     Thanks to regressive politics, poor educational systems (why is 
it that children should only be taught at low educational levels?), 
and other factors such as domination of the masses by "elite" 
classes, the masses are generally kept very far behind in science. 
This ignorance breeds regressive ideas about human health, security, 
and liberty as well. For anyone who wishes to return to a 
preindustrial level of technology, without subsidy from industrial 
peoples, then they do not need eugenics. The rest of us will. 
Eugenics will not need to be forced upon any society, nor will it 
likely be forced upon any society. As people see the signs of 
genetic degeneration increasing, and better udnerstand the 
principles of modern progressive eugenics, they will willingly put 
eugenics programs into place, through democratic process. 
       We can go several centuries without eugenics anyway, before 
humans begin to suffer massively from the lack of eugenic 
maintenance. This is nto a high priority issue. Besides, with many 
of the military, religions, and political leaders now, it is likely 
humans will find themselves under strong selective pressures soon 
anyway, which will reinvigorate human gene pools (those which 
survive). Same with population control, it is not needed, human 
populations will be controlled thanks to mismanagement of human 
affairs, wars, natural epidemics, natural disasters, starvations 
etc.. We should be thinking more how we will maintain human 
populations, even increase them, under future pressures (such as 
live agent biological wars), than how we will reduce them. With 
efficient management, human populations could be ten billion now, 
even with environmental degradation global warming etc. no human 
would need to suffer physically for lack of resources such as living 
space, shelter, and food. Get out of balance with nature, nature has 
ways of eventually forcing balance again.  
Best Wishes,
Alan Van Arsdale