Mixed Eugenics?

Larrey

Ad Honorem
Sep 2011
5,575
#11
I never liked the idea that the way to get along is to blend all the cultures and races together so that everybody would be the same. How boring.
That's a curiously passive idea about what happens if you do. Everyone has always been begging, borrowing, stealing, adopting and adapting anyway – and that way interesting new stuff gets invented. Culture isn't some static thing – it's more like a constant improvisation of certain themes, and it thrives on adoption and adaption.

The danger is unlikely to be the mixing, but more the modern tendency to homogenize through instant communication and coordination and lowest-common denominator one-size-fits-all products – which tends to be expedient for marketing purposes, when everyone demands the same things to the same level of specs. (Makes it easy and practical to cater to, and then some get nauseatingly rich in the process.)
 
Dec 2011
1,332
Belgium
#12
That's a curiously passive idea about what happens if you do. Everyone has always been begging, borrowing, stealing, adopting and adapting anyway – and that way interesting new stuff gets invented. Culture isn't some static thing – it's more like a constant improvisation of certain themes, and it thrives on adoption and adaption.

The danger is unlikely to be the mixing, but more the modern tendency to homogenize through instant communication and coordination and lowest-common denominator one-size-fits-all products – which tends to be expedient for marketing purposes, when everyone demands the same things to the same level of specs. (Makes it easy and practical to cater to, and then some get nauseatingly rich in the process.)
That's a curiously passive idea about what happens if you do. Everyone has always been begging, borrowing, stealing, adopting and adapting anyway – and that way interesting new stuff gets invented. Culture isn't some static thing – it's more like a constant improvisation of certain themes, and it thrives on adoption and adaption.

The danger is unlikely to be the mixing, but more the modern tendency to homogenize through instant communication and coordination and lowest-common denominator one-size-fits-all products – which tends to be expedient for marketing purposes, when everyone demands the same things to the same level of specs. (Makes it easy and practical to cater to, and then some get nauseatingly rich in the process.)
 
Dec 2011
1,332
Belgium
#15
That's a curiously passive idea about what happens if you do. Everyone has always been begging, borrowing, stealing, adopting and adapting anyway – and that way interesting new stuff gets invented. Culture isn't some static thing – it's more like a constant improvisation of certain themes, and it thrives on adoption and adaption.

The danger is unlikely to be the mixing, but more the modern tendency to homogenize through instant communication and coordination and lowest-common denominator one-size-fits-all products – which tends to be expedient for marketing purposes, when everyone demands the same things to the same level of specs. (Makes it easy and practical to cater to, and then some get nauseatingly rich in the process.)
 
Dec 2011
1,332
Belgium
#16
That's a curiously passive idea about what happens if you do. Everyone has always been begging, borrowing, stealing, adopting and adapting anyway – and that way interesting new stuff gets invented. Culture isn't some static thing – it's more like a constant improvisation of certain themes, and it thrives on adoption and adaption.

The danger is unlikely to be the mixing, but more the modern tendency to homogenize through instant communication and coordination and lowest-common denominator one-size-fits-all products – which tends to be expedient for marketing purposes, when everyone demands the same things to the same level of specs. (Makes it easy and practical to cater to, and then some get nauseatingly rich in the process.)
Larrey,

I think or at least understand it as such, that you answered Imperia's question;
"Saint-Simonism. Part of the point of history in their view was for the races meet, mix, blend together, and that way the future utopia for all humanity envisioned is achieved. A kind of idea of complementarity.

Gobineua's Aryan supremacy theories are sort of the Saint-Simonist idea inverted. The point of history is still that the races meet and mix, and that means the Aryan genius kicks of all the processes of history and civilization. G's vision unlike the upbeat Saint-Simonist's is however tragic. The process of the Aryans encountering the rest is the entire point of history. If they don't they just spend their time as some kind of barbarian cattle rustlers, and no history or greatness ensues. The problem is that the thing that produces this Aryan greatness, all history itself, also consumes the Aryan "blood". When they have been mixed in beyond a certain point, civilization collapses. But it was always impossible to maintain the Aryan purity of blood. It's supposed to get mixed and used up like that, or else it would be of no use and there would be no history. So for G it's the Aryans who do it all, but history and civilization are ephemeral. Once the Aryans run out, the future is bleak entropy for ever. It's a vision as aristocratic (all G's writings were about himself really) as tragic. "

And yes, there is as you say no danger in "mixing", because the Homo Sapiens has, nearly at individual level, the intellectual potential to do all what one has inherited in this stage of the evolution, independent where one on the worldmap is located. It is just that some humans can't develop their potential in full due to the local circumstances. And yes by mixing and bringing up the circumstances to the level that each can develop their intelectual potential wherever they are located, there will always remain a Gauss curve, which differentiate the intellectual level of the total population, hence at the end of the worldpopulation.

But as you say the real danger is:
"The danger is more the modern tendency to homogenize through instant communication and coordination and lowest-common denominator one-size-fits-all products – which tends to be expedient for marketing purposes, when everyone demands the same things to the same level of specs. (Makes it easy and practical to cater to, and then some get nauseatingly rich in the process.)"
No, even at university level one has to stimulate the critical sense and rebelling against the "old stated ideas" and to try to upgrade as much as possible the low performing ones of the curve of Gauss and even to stimulate the happy few best performing ones and give them the possibilities to develop their special skills...

But at the end there still will be a myriad of diversities....I suppose...thinking that I am logical thinking...

Kind regards, Paul.
 

deaf tuner

Ad Honoris
Oct 2013
14,438
Europix
#19
Sowell, a sociologist, says that most if not all of characteristics conventionally described as “racial” are really “cultural”. Pretty persuasive.
I've looked a bit on comments of his work. It seems he isn't defining very clearly the concept of "race" (I can't blame him, honestly).

The very concept of "race" remains extremely debatable, even if we exclude the Nazi-like positions.

We can talk about "cultural", and yes, there are huge differences, and I agree that we shouldn't be afraid to admit superiorities in some cultures, under some aspects and/or periods (I think Sowell deals with that too).

The problem remains that generally "race" is a concept used by racists, promoting a superiority/inferiority based not on objective cultural factors but on the simple apartenence to the said "race" in the end.
 
Oct 2009
3,557
San Diego
#20
We know that in the West the idea of superior race spread in the 19th and 20th centuries.
With the division of Africa and neo-colonialism to bring "civilization to these territories", with racial segregation in the US, with the encouragement of racial bleaching in Brazil, and the Nazis in ww2 and Japan with the idea of being the pure race from Asia.

So I ask has there ever been an ideology that propagates the idea that the perfect race would be achieved by the miscegenation (interracial relationship) of the races?

This post is not to promote an offensive idea I am just taking a question.
The concept of eugenics has nothing to do with race... inherently.
It was born of the scientific findings that you could breed for traits because of genetics... which would argue that you would be selecting for the strongest traits you could find, regardless of the race you found those genes in.

This fact, however, immediately got conflated with antiquated aristocratic notions of "blue blood"- and the notion of inherited superiority. Post Darwin a lot of social conservatives of that era did their level best to "identify" the traits that set the upper class apart from the hoi polloi and the western European apart from those over whom they exerted colonial hegemony.
This quickly transmorphed into a pseudo-scientific rationalization for whatever kind of self aggrandizing cultural conceit you might want to co-opt to secure power... or to demonize whichever subculture for which a dominant culture ALREADY treated dismissively.

That is- like religion- it JUST SO HAPPENED that any culture that got a grip on darwins ideas realized that THEIR culture was the "fittest"- and that they should breed for purity of their Own "obviously" superior traits.

That is not really eugenics. That is cultural conceit.

There WERE people advocating for something a lot closer to actual eugenics... though they still had the same tendency toward bigotry as their rest of their contemporaries... their essential objective was to identify people who were smarter, longer lived, had better eyesight, were immune to common diseases... and try to cross those people to breed a stronger, healthier, and smarter population.
They understood the concept of hybrid vigor- meaning that you often get the best result by mixing Dissimilar genotypes-

The Problems of eugenics are whether you can trust government to define what traits are preferrable- and are you not creating just a new, genetic aristocracy?

But what will emerge thru CRISPR technology will be eugenics... though we will Call it "designer" babies.
Companies will offer 'packages' of genes you can select for your future child... And like most things in our capitalist consumeropoly, the rich will be able to afford to customize their children's genomes- making them immune to heart disease- cancer resistant- taller and more athletic- with perfect vision, and higher IQ... while the poor will make babies the old fashioned way.

It won't be government defined 'superiority'- it will be dictated by whim, fashion, and trend.
And what will the emergent race of gene tailored superior children of the super rich look like?

Will rich blacks chose traits of lighter skin tones and straighter hair? Or opt darker and nappier?
Will rich whites opt for the darker skin of a perpetual tan, but otherwise prefer blond and blue hair?
About the only thing we can be sure of is that every group of rich will chose for their children to be taller... and for boys to have larger genitalia and daughters to have larger, breast cancer proof breasts.

And what of the generational changes in fashion?
What happens when a whole generation of the privileged end up sporting genetic traits that are out of vogue by the time they become adults?
 

Similar History Discussions