Betreff: Eugenics
Von: "Daniel VanArsdale"
Datum: Fri, 03 Dec 2004 21:08:39 -0000

    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 
   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