Mixed Eugenics?

Aug 2018
447
Southern Indiana
#21
Its a pretty common idea really. Any nation that promotes diversity is effectively doing exactly this.

The US has run a diversity lottery for years. The idea is to favor countries that don't currently have large amounts of immigration to the US. At a recent citizenship ceremony in Kansas city 360 immigrants represented 69 countries. Which is pretty healthy no matter how you look at it
Everyone should attend one of those ceremonies at some point in their life, they are inspiring.
 
Likes: Iraq Bruin
Mar 2019
1,448
Kansas
#22
Everyone should attend one of those ceremonies at some point in their life, they are inspiring.
Agreed. When I still lived in Australia I was invited by a friend to attend. Made me appreciate Australia all that much more. When on the reverse side here in the States, I understood the excitement and passion the locals displayed when I was granted citizenship.
 
Jan 2010
4,439
Atlanta, Georgia USA
#23
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.
Generally agree with this, with the caveat that certain cultures are better at doing certain things: Sowell references Germans as being very good farmers, and Chinese, Lebanese and Jews as being very good traders.

If we frame the question with culture as the determinant, than we can try to address the problems that certain cultural groups have; if we frame the question around “race” then the problems become hopeless. Of course, that may well be a feature to those fixated on race.

Sowell gives a couple of pertinent examples: one hundred years ago, both the Irish and the Italians were renowned for being laborers, with the Irish also being very good politicians, and the Italians good stoneworkers (and unfortunately criminals). Today those stereotypes no longer have force.
 
Last edited:
Dec 2011
1,332
Belgium
#24
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?
Sculptingman,

that's the best approach and comments that I have read in years about that touchy subject of eugenics. I thank you for that.

I discussed it already on the BBC history messageboard of the time. It closed in 2012 and up to recently one could still read all the posted messages. And further on a small board of ex-BBC-ors.
History of eugenics
Darwin and Social Darwinism

Kind regards and with esteem, Paul.
 
Mar 2019
1,448
Kansas
#25
Sowell gives a couple of pertinent examples: one hundred years ago, both the Irish and the Italians were renowned for being laborers, with the Irish also being very good politicians, and the Italians good stoneworkers (and unfortunately criminals). Today those stereotypes no longer have force.
But there is a distinct difference between being naturally good at something, and becoming good at something. Australia has a well deserved reputation for producing great swimmer over the years. The question is, does this mean Australians are naturally good swimmers.

No.

What Australia excelled at was identifying and developing talent. And the government put a lot of resources into giving swimmers with talent the chance to develop that talent as far as they could.

It is the reason there are no Australian ice hockey players in the international hall of fame, but ice hockey players seem to grow on trees in Canada.
 
Dec 2011
1,332
Belgium
#26
Generally agree with this, with the caveat that certain cultures are better at doing certain things: Sowell references Germans as being very good farmers, and Chinese, Lebanese and Jews as being very good traders.

If we frame the question with culture as the determinant, than we can try to address the problems that certain cultural groups have; if we frame the question around “race” then the problems become hopeless. Of course, that may well be a feature to those fixated on race.

Sowell gives a couple of pertinent examples: one hundred years ago, both the Irish and the Italians were renowned for being laborers, with the Irish also being very good politicians, and the Italians good stoneworkers (and unfortunately criminals). Today those stereotypes no longer have force.
David Vagamundo,

"Sowell gives a couple of pertinent examples: one hundred years ago, both the Irish and the Italians were renowned for being laborers, with the Irish also being very good politicians, and the Italians good stoneworkers (and unfortunately criminals). Today those stereotypes no longer have force."

Irish renowned for being labourers....of course as there was nearly no industry in Ireland it was logical that they had to stick to these jobs, because there was nothing otherwise. Had they lived in England they would have been I think the same as English ones. Of course if they could escape their "label", they would nearly have to behave as English ones and better not with an Irish name because again they would have a label. One had the same history in Belgium, where the North was rural and the South, after Britain, the most industrial area on the European continent. And the North with an elite taking example at the rich South and copying their manners and language. And yes they were the labourers too as in Ireland. And among others apart from language difficulties, this unfair treatement of the North by the rich South as the poor peasants with their backward language was one of the reasons of the start of the Flemish movement end of the 19th century.
And now that the North is richer than the South after WWII due to several circumstances, some Flemish nationalists have the same attitudes as in the time the rich industrials of both the South and the North. And they, although they are not more laborious than the rest of Europe, they make still a fuss of that "laborious Flemish worker"
See in this propaganda film Orban from Hungary saying
"Flemish they are the part that is working"...

You see what with Sculptingman's design-babies can happen. Apart from, as I understand it, at the end a stock which is by its uniformity unstable to counter rapid changes as in evolution and environment happens?

Kind regards from Paul.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
19,936
SoCal
#27
Not the way I look at it; nor, obviously, many others. Diversity = Conflict = Weakness. A move is underway to reform this Lottery system with one that favors limiting immigration from everywhere and giving preference to those would-be immigrants who have skills that are needed.

BTW, this long overdue policy change has nothing to do with Eugenics or Race at all. It's more of an environmental deal. We're full-up with folks in the USA.
Frankly, I suspect that any immigration reform along the lines that you are thinking of here is unlikely to actually pass in the near future. The Democratic Party appears to have become more pro-immigration over the last 10 or 15 years--which makes compromise harder. Of course, the GOP has also probably changed over the last 10 or 15 years and become more restrictionist--perhaps as a result of it realizing that it wants to avoid having the white percentage in the US fall too much.

The Diversity Visa Lottery involves relatively small numbers (50,000 immigrants a year, plus their families--though the effect is magnified due to subsequent immigration due to family reunification). I do wonder if the Diversity Visa Lottery allows us to have things such as more ethnic food and more variety in regards to things such as shopping, though. Seriously--do more diverse countries have it easier in regards to this?

BTW, I myself actually benefited from the Diversity Visa Lottery together with my mom and sister. My mom won it back in 2003, I believe (it was the first time that we actually played this lottery), and we got our Green Cards in 2004. Unfortunately my dad's records from the Soviet military (he was drafted to it when he was young) weren't fully processed by the time of the deadline (in 2004) and thus my dad didn't actually get his Green Card until 2011 or so when his work/job secured one for him. So, yeah, I, my mom, and my sister benefited from this lottery, but in the long(er)-run it wouldn't have actually made a difference in our case since AFAIK my dad's work/job would have been able to secure Green Cards for us as well had we still needed them in 2011 or so.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
19,936
SoCal
#28
The Diversity lottery has always been provisioned with floating numbers I have seen it as high as 200k and as low as 50k

And America full - Swing out through Kansas and tell me that.
It's 50K per year for immediate beneficiaries. Of course, there are also family members and subsequent family reunification--none of which are actually included in that 50K total AFAIK.

Also, Yes, the US still has a lot of room for its population to grow. Of course, the immigration restrictionists' argument might be that just like the Ivy League only select the smartest people (of each race, at least), so the US should only select the smartest immigrants. Personally, I think that this is being too restrictive. Personally, I would favor an immigration policy with a more merit-based focus but that also allowed some lower-IQ people to come here just as long as they didn't subsequently cause trouble here. I do think that it would be a good thing for an immigration policy not to lower a country's average IQ too much, though. After all, there is a risk that this could cause strain on a country's social safety net due to a higher percentage of people possibly needing to be subsidized. So, yeah, focus on merit-based immigration but also be compassionate and allow some low-IQ immigrants in who are unlikely to cause any trouble--just as long as one doesn't admit too many of them at once, of course. BTW, I'm not convinced that letting in too many smart immigrants at once is a good idea either (due to the risk of increased job/employment competition for natives)--though it does appear to be working out OK for Canada and Australia (in regards to Australia, other than perhaps for its environment).
 
Mar 2019
1,448
Kansas
#29
It's 50K per year for immediate beneficiaries. Of course, there are also family members and subsequent family reunification--none of which are actually included in that 50K total AFAIK.
Thats correct. Reunification programs have their own intake quotas, and it is not unusual to see family members waiting 10 - 12 years to immigrate to the US.

And yes the whole immigration debate is a highly charged one. Personally regardless of merits I think the most important quality we need to look at is a desire to embrace the culture they are entering.
 
Likes: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
19,936
SoCal
#30
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.
In theory, this could be done, but you'd also probably have to select by IQ. Mass intermarriage between everyone without selecting for IQ (as in, assortative mating) might very well result in a significant reduction in the amount of extremely smart people throughout the world--which isn't going to be very good for scientific research and progress. (After all, average IQ varies by race/ethnic group and there is also an extremely massive amount of variation within each race and ethnic group in regards to IQ--much greater than the difference in average IQs between races/ethnic groups, in fact.) If one wants to maximize the amount of extremely smart people that a society will have, then extremely smart people should be encouraged to reproduce exclusively among themselves--and to reproduce a whole lot. There's no reason that extremely smart people of all races can't intermarry each other, have lots and lots of children, and produce a new human race or ethnic group with an extremely high average IQ. In fact, if they will consistently out-reproduce all other humans, then humanity is gradually going to look more and more like them--as in, like this new extremely smart human race or ethnic group.

That's how you combine widespread race mixing with eugenics!
 

Similar History Discussions