2002-06-10 17:46 UTC Still continuing the eugenics debate
Nadia replied to my question asking why we have an inate right to procreate:
Human fairness and dignity?
Life isn't fair. The concept that we should have fairness is exactly what is causing the devolution in the first place. I do not understand how dignity is relevant here.
Are you actually prepared to make the value judgements that eugenics requires?
Yes.
...and actually enforce your policy on unworthy women who make the mistake of getting pregnant?
The punishment for unlicensed births need not be any more serious than community service. This would have to be investigated further if humanitarian eugenics were carried out.
With quite a lot of false starts and odd results. Not to say that it's not possible to produce superhumans, but should we?
We should at least produce humans that are our equals. The result I am concerned with is that we will produce sub-average humans.
Most of our domesticated plants and animals are incapable of existing without humans to care for them. A lot of plants can't even reproduce in the wild anymore. In its most extreme state (but the only case where eugenics would actually have its desired effect) we would see similar effects in humans, whether intentionally selected for or not.
Fertility would have to be another criteria to breed for.
A better solution is to care for the children that are already produced, without putting value judgements on their parents. Better education for women, especially, will lower birth rates in a much more humanitarian manner.
While I completely agree that we should do this, it will not, of itself, solve the problem of devolution. In fact, as the more intelligent children will be the ones to understand the message most, it will contribute to the problem.