Malthusians and the House of SaxeCoburgGotha can literally shove a giant piece of shit in their mouth/s. Reason being is because they have taken over Britain physically and metaphorically with their money and theories. Both of which have collaborated with the prospects of taking away British liberty and what have u
Akibadono, cite anything or anywhere that proves Darwin's theory was right. I would like to see that statement backed up with the truth, not yours or someone elses opinion. You show me that Darwin's THEORY has been proven true, and I will back you 100%, all the way.
Society's rich can become poor with losses, in jobs, health or abilities. Any human being in society either rich, middleclass or poor could become a victim of job loss, loss of health or loss of abilities in society. Poor might become more secure in finances, if they apply themselves to finding an ability to secure themselves employment/new skills.Breasmilk is free, & if of good quality, can help provide brain & body with nutrients/Immunity. Formula costs society & not all formulas are healthy.
Depression can result from genetic mental illness, Depression & Mental Illness is not limited to genetics. Depression & Mental illness, apart of humanity can develop in person/s people consider perfect. Diagnosis of Mental Illness/Disability & IQ is not always evident. People have potential to improve & be useful.Society took away a natural life of people living together with natures resources. Society created overpopulation in immigration, resulted in drug/alcohol abuse & other negative factors
It's funny how the abused byproducts of ages past have an opinion on eugenics... we are living in social darwinism, your told what to think, without the ability to form your own thoughts on the matter due to lack of relivent info. Only the most corrupt and their offspring are safe from the murderus tendancies of such faulty reasoning. Guess that's why belife in things is so important to those who have no real desire to ever really think, but are quite happy to post and support redundant theory.
What right does someone have to FORCE another human being away from having kids? It'd be great for the human race to "evolve" into a stronger, smarter species, but forcing the issue like this is taking a step in the wrong direction
@MinGophers What right does the goverment have to tell us not to kill other people ? It'd be great for the human race to be more peaceful and safe but forcing the issue like this is taking a step in the wrong direction.
Free energy has been here all along ,But there are very powerfull forces that want to supress the technology,Get a motor that works with the power of magnets only at LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM ,Free yourself!
There's a Malthusian problem right now in Haiti. Malthus was right. If we had mass Eugenics, that would be really awesome. I want to develop a superhuman race. Enough of this special olympics crap and coddling the retards and other messed up subhumans and undesirables.
According to Wikipedia, Darwin theorized about a "natural selection" that, in his concept, had nothing to do with "survival of the fittest", because this selection was NOT based on competition or "fitness" of any kind.(for ex. the coelacanth has no predators, so it needs no fitness) He was later introduced to the idea. Anyway, I should take a look at The Origin of the Species, but I feel Alex a little biased here.
I have asked this before and i will ask again, how do you stop spontanious mutations in a healthy gene pool? You cant the same genetic diseases will be around no matter what and eugenics cant stop it. These mutations happen when ever, thats why two people who are not related can have the same genetic diseaes. Two healthy parents does not always equal healthy offspring.
@cerberus1874 How would anyone draw a link between eugenics and preventing random mutation?? Eugenics is solely about increasing the frequency of good traits and reducing the bad. 2 healthy people may bear children that have a random unforeseeable and bad mutation, that mutation is now in the childrens dna and will be passed on if they choose to have children themselves. This is where eugenics comes in and says 'have a second think about having kids'
Thanks to morons like Alex Jones, eugenics and genetic engineering get a bad rap. New flash idiots, improving our genetic structure is a GOOD THING!! HURR DURR!! I didn't think that needed explaining, now STFU with your conspiracy theory bullshit.
Paul Ehrlich predicted wide-scale starvation for the U.S. by the 1980's in his stellar tome: "The End of Affluence." "Dr." Ehrlich supports W.H.O.'s tireless efforts to sterilize 3rd-World women through serums and subcutaneous implants.
Eugenics. Good for horses, bad for politics. You can get tested for Down's Syndrome and coat hanger the useless eater into a biohazard bag. Same dif. Only religious crackpots pretend eugenics doesn't apply to people.
A Quality Control and Financial Portfolio survey should be necessary before people have kids in order to ensure they are born smart and good looking and have a decent inheritance should The parents die...
Many religious institutions had already perfected the science of eugenics long before Darwin, or Malthus, documented the practice scientifically. The rampant culling of non-believers, both human and not, and the selected annihilation of civilizations across the globe from the 16th through the 19th centuries remains one of the finest applications of eugenics in all of history. The logic of the Christian stamp of acceptance/condemnation is indistinguishable from that of Hitler.
So now Jesus was pro eugenics....i tell you what....i wil give you 300 dollars out of my check if you can post any quote said by Jesus who can be trace with book chapter and # that is pro eugenics....and if you can't please let us know why Dawkins is in favor of eugenics? and why you don't adress that?
why if even Leonard Darwin(charles darwin's son) was in charge for the eugenics programs under nazi germany after Francis Galton if The Darwins were so against eugenics?
Jesus wasn't pro-eugenics. Never said he was. Christianity as practiced through history has categorized people into two groups: believers and nonbelievers. Christians are trained by the Bible to renounce anyone who isn't one of their own kind. Classic eugenics.
Christianity is categorized by two people like you said belivers and nonebelivers but what you fail to adress was that the whole goal of christianism according to Jesus is to TURN the nonebelivers INTO belivers no matter their race or color or poor or rich, my friend,eugenics was ancient for pegan religions cmon man you know this,do your hate against christians make you re-write history to turn the tables to protect your belief system?
the romans did a lot of crimes,but none like eugenics.
This video suggests only two camps... the evil Darwinists who ally with Nazis to preserve only the best specimens of humanity, and the loving Christians who offer deliverance from such evil behavior. Rubbish. Fundamentalist Christianity is a powerful discrimination force with a singular mission to convert or destroy, by militant means if necessary the heathen nonbelievers of the world. It is amusing to see Christians feign ignorance of this most central imperative from their own God.
Whatever you said Dawkins,but your statement is not accurate but more personal,i don't think Francis Galton and the Darwin family tree(ironic) were obligated by a bunch of priests to do peer scientific reviews to promote the most inhuman holocaust in the HISTORY of this planet,hell even today half of russia don't know what tha fuck is christianism,Stalin kill 60 in less than 12 years,the crusades kill 4 million in 300 years!
ohh you people also have a lot blood over your darwinian crap.
@breedofthe45 Any practice resembling eugenics is an ethical problem more serious today due to our new-found knowledge in genetic engineering. It's practiced by any group that feels that their clan is superior to all others. Muslim culture feels the same way as Christians regarding their God-given supremacy over everyone else. The two faiths dislike one another because they share so many common traits to control. They've used many culling practices to achieve that end. Smells like eugenics.
you want to twist the eugenics into religion you have to go to every single universities in the planet and tell them all the documentaries and books and researchs and studies done by historians that they are wrong and they need to fix it,tell them your name is charadester and you will like them to stop doing documentaries about the holocaust and the social darwinism that the book "the origins of the species"created a religion for racist elite people.
Simply blame one group for all the ill is foolish to say the least, no need to clutch straws the clip makes no assertion of "good ole' Christianity", btw I'm agnostic.
"Absolute power corrupts absolutely" - Lord Acton, no truer words have ever been stated. The fact of the matter is if there is no checks and balances in govt., you'll find yourself in a dictatorship. This sole fact is true whether it be theocratic regimes in Iran or Saudia Arabia, or atheist regimes in the USSR or China.
We are who we are. Hating ourselves is not productive. Plastic surgery has its practical side, especially for people who have gone through windshields.
The river Ganges nourishes over 200 million people in India. It could not do so if it did not carry a lot more water in it than usual. The additional amount of water comes from the glaciers in the Himalaya mountains which are melting away fast due to global warming.
In a few years only, the glaciers will be gone and the Ganges will carry a lot less water. By that time the population will have increased by another couple of million people.
Everybody should have to ask for permission to have a child. If you can prove that you will be able to feed and educate it, I see no reason, why that permission should not be given.
Naturally, rich people will have more children just to show off with them. But when the parents die, the inheritance will be apportioned to more heirs. Making them all somewhat less rich.
Poor people on the other hand would have only one child to support. There would be even enough money for education left.
That is the world ! Why USA kills so many human on earth ? Concerning democracy, freedome and liberty ?! No for Control ! Welcome in the NWO, slave ! I hate this system so mutch lies lies and lies in the mainstream media ! It is a mad hell world !
the problem with this idea is WHO is more suitable to breed and who is not i bet most ppl answers are along racial and economical lines. as soon as you buy into quantity control the next logical degree is quality control.
i would say quality control certainly based on a series of tests, with some randomization of scores to account for any gaps in our knowledge.
You can formulate it pragmatically/altruistically rather than in an "elitist" "supremacist" way as follows - the Breeding Licence should depend on your *ability to look after others*
Eugenetics is a scam, how exaclty to you take only good traits from a person. Everything has a good side and a bad side. The "Super-race" can be physically stronger or faster but not smarter or they can be smarter but have no compassion. What have any scientist or inventor created that didn't have a downside to it?
The crackpot fundamentalists who put this together (and all the other lies they attempt to fill the Internet and other stupid minds with) will - pray God! - be rejected by evolution and bred out of existence. The sooner the better for everyone else on the planet.
What would be the point of breeding weaker people? We have finite resources on this earth. Those who live affluent lives have to protect their quality of life from the "masses" who really aren't worth anything, except in a metaphysical/religious sense.
Selective breed WILL increase individual freedom and a thinner population will enhance it.
Who should have the power to control selective breeding? The state? The rich? The idea that some organization can control whether or not an individual has a right to reproduce is well inline with totalitarianism. Whether this totalitarianism is enforced by the state, a corporation or power elite matters not. What does matter is that individual liberties are spat upon by such a system.
-sliding scale , unlimited babies for top score, 2 for next, 1 for some, zero for most some randomization to account for what science&present understanding missed
Sounds like mob rule to me, with democractic eugenics we would have a tyranny of the majority. How about individual selective breeding, where each individual chooses whom they wish to reproduce with, and the rest of society be damned?
thats fine until you have socialism where other peoples taxes will pay for them .. or when people go into "r-selection" mode, multiplying like a virus until every natural resource is consumed before moving to the next area.
i'd prefer some sort of formal *quality-test* for the breeding licence, but i put forward the "democratic eugenics" idea to counter usual cries of "authoritarian state!!"
i'd also quite like "VHEMT", that would be better than the status quo.
What if--some crimes like child abuse/child neglect, endangerment of innocents, drunk or drugged driving, acts that indicate sociopathy or some other genetic problem, or problem that would make a person an unfit parent, came with a choice of intensive therapy, prison time and long probation, or short therapy + permanent sterilization
What if we paid non offenders who are still unfit to reproduce a tidy sum of money to be sterilized? Made sterilization a requirement to get welfare?
i'm convinced a lot of crime is caused by bad enviroment , and of course a good enviroment comes from balance.. not spreading the parents resources too thinly, and parent's competence
in short, whether you beleive in nature or nuture most of these measures make sense
Remember, there are too many people. We can't afford all the perfectly good people who might be born. Part of the goal has to be to thin our numbers.
Remember we are not talking about eliminating people currently living, but preventing people not get conceived. We need to have fewer of us. Period.
Fewer undesireables, and fewer desireables. Then, every human life in existence has a better quality of life than she would if we left it all to chance.
"We need to have fewer of us. Period" Would you be willing to sterlize yourself to improve the quality of life for the rest of mankind? If your say no then I say why should you expect others to do the same for you?
I'm already beyond the age of responsible childbearing. My grandchildren will be assets to the gene pool.
As much as I'd like dozens of them, I know that if everyone like me had dozens, none of them could have a very nice life. I want them to have a nice life.
Walter, it scares me a little that the most intelligent, most sensitive, best educated men I know, in my family and among my friends, have exactly that attitude.
It makes me wonder if I made a mistake. I love the younger generation in my family, but I might die not knowing they have a life worth living, and that makes me so sad.
How many children do you intend to have when you grow up and how many sacrifices do you expect people in the third world to make for the comfort of your family?
I am not asking other people to sacrifice parenthood for ME.
I believe we should all limit our procreation to give future generations (I will be dead) a spacious world of natural beauty.
I also believe we should make it socially acceptable for people who don't particularly want children to decline to have them. Sociopaths, for example, can't love. Give them something pleasurable, like money, so they don't pass on their condition, or harm an innocent by being a bad parent.
Is not eugenics a form of socialism itself? After all the main argument for eugenics, that society as a whole needs to take control of the means of reproduction for the betterment of humanity, is socialist at its core. Indeed people often speak of the Nazi's and eugenics but every socialist and communist state has had or still has atleast one selective breeding program. Adults do not need the state telling them how and with whom they can breed.
When adults are not responsible enough to think through the lives their children will live in an overcrowded world, they do indeed need someone smarter and wiser telling them how to breed.
Truth of the matter is we don't have many adults anymore. We have big fat lazy overgrown kids who don't have the self control not to be outrageously fat and dismally broke. These are precisely the people who need to be paid off not to reproduce.
Yet as idiotic as you claim these people are, I am willing to bet they are smart enough not to sterilize themselves for little money. Indeed if we look at history we see that it is only when sterilization is mandatory can eugenic programs function.
Go into the nearest plasma collection center and look at the people in there selling their body fluids for twenty or fifty dollars. "Donate" yourself for the experience and be open to talk to the people on either side of you.
Don't ask them if they'd be sterilized for money--that's impolite--but just watch them and ask yourself if they need another child ever and if a few thousand could help them a LOT.
It would be unethical not to fully inform the patient of the procedure they were undergoing. Again no matter how desperate a person is the are not going to spay themselves for a few thousands. The drive to reproduce is fundamental and will overcome monetry incentives.A kidney means little to most, however the ability to have children matters much.
You are unaware of the many people who choose to be child free, or who believe it is not right to bring a child into the world as it is. The most intelligent and sensitive are making this choice, while as you said, those dominated by their animal drives are overpopulating the earth. We have to change that around somehow.
We won't really know whether cash incentives will work until we offer them, now will we?
What we know is that reproductive medicine is a booming industry pulling in millions of dollars each year. The free market does not lie, people want to have children and they are willing to spend big dollars to do so. Now if people are actually willing to go into debt to have children, what makes you believe people will sterilize themselves for a measel $3,000. A couple who wished to have children would probably pay double that amount for the woman to serve as a surrogate.
From an altruistic perspective - i would advocate only allowing people to be brought into the world if their parents can give them a good start
e.g.
how about a "Minimum Inheritence At Birth" - a certain amount of capital (land/shares/savings) that the parents must be able to sign over to their kids in the form of a trust, with this being a barrier to cross for breeding-rights
That would ensure, for example, people aren't being brought into the world as 'debt-slaves' or in poverty etc etc.
Property interests have little to do with being a good parent. The obvious example is Britney Spears. She can leave her children more inheritance than most moms, but she also drops them on their heads.
With a smaller population, I suspect upward mobility would return, and a genteel poverty would also be workable.
Anything other than encouraging people to self select for child free lives (making it socially acceptable) gets too creepy for me.
If there was my "Minimum Inheritance At Birth" concept, Britney's kids would be born with funding to hire professional adoptive parents.
mobility: the DEPTH of the worlds heirachy is a little shocking at the minute, and this is due to the huge number of interconected elements that gives so many opportunity for middlemen to establish control. Agree smaller population is a Good Thing.
I'm not ready for a "breeding license". You could end up with "illegal people" that way. No one should be stigmatized by having an "unlicensed pregnancy".
First, offer incentives to those people who currently make babies for "the check" to be sterilized, so they can choose, more money or children. Some will choose to make their own way and have children without welfare. Let them. It's the babies born for the check I feel sorry for. I'd like to spare human beings that...risk..
It's not so individual now. How many babies are born because mama wants more welfare check, or a family wants an immigration "anchor baby"? How many women have children they don't really like, much less love? Think about it. The mom who dragged her kid by a leash through Verizon store, moms who kill their kids intentionally or through negligence, the mom who killed her kids driving drunk down the wrong lane of the highway with ten shots of vodka in her blood and more in her stomach?
No doubt there are horrible parents out there but that has nothing to do with individuality. The point is regardless of reasons why people have children, they still freely chose to have them. Whether you like it our not people are making the individual choice to reproduce with whom they please and their is nothing anybody can do about it.
Some people freely choose to have children because with each baby comes a tax incentive or a welfare check. We can cut those rewards OFF so only people who really want a child have a child.
We can protect the rights of the next generation of children to NOT be born to a sociopath or a child abuser or a violent parents or a crazy parent by educating and encouraging people who will not be good enough parents to not become parents.
We can't afford unlimited babies from anyone. What we could do is stop tax cuts and other incentives for having children. We should certainly stop welfare payments to people who have babies they cannot possibly support--place the children in adoptive homes--and watch the numbers of poor people's "oopsies" plummet. This sounds horrible, but if we paid the less fit $3,000 to be sterilized, they'd do it voluntarily. Fertility medicine should also go out the window, let nature select.
I agree that welfare should be reduced, if not abolished altogether. People should not be relying on the state for survival, that is what private charities are for. In the same respect I do not want my tax dollars paying for some absurd sterilization program. If welfare is abolished it would not be necessary.
Three thousand is a tiny fraction it takes to support a welfare child. In addition to welfare, if the child has a disability welfare parents are quick to collect that extra social security check.
If welfare is abolished, but sterilization is not offered, there will still be children born to welfare parents who will either try to raise them "off grid" or who will go to adoptive families who will suffer hardship of their own, and on behalf of the child.
If an adoptive family makes the decision to adopt " welfare children" then what is the problem? Neither society nor the state is being burdened. No one is forcing them to take these children, it is what they want. In truth you support sterlization not because of welfare concerns but because of population/ gene pool concerns.
Good thing there's an entire universe out there waiting to be populated, right? Floating cities, orbital habitation platforms, off-Earth colonies...these things are coming, along with the near unimaginable resources that nanotechnology will make available. Overpopulation is a meaningless concept now.
IMO near term growth threatens acheiving these things.
population should be kept stable (or even encouraged to decline) freeing up resources for reseach & development of the high tech you mention. once we've got orbital colonies / space-mirrors / fusion or whatever then another boom can occur.
(although i suspect that we'll just see the same problems amplified further... :) )
I see. You wouldn't turn the other way if Rapture Buses came to Rapture Christians away to special Fema Rapture Stations where they would just disappear...
I do support voluntary sterilization, with incentives, because of population/gene pool concerns.
My gene pool concerns are based on compassion for the as yet unborn. I think they deserve to be born into bodies free of deformity and pain. Life presents risk and emotional pain is just part of it, but give little babies the benefit of the best start they can have, in the most pleasant world we can leave them.
Would you be willing to sterilize yourself and help reduce the population of the Earth? You say there are too many people on the planet, so why not "be the change" and voluntarily sterilize yourself? Or do you think yourself to great a gift to the gene pool to sacrafice?
Why would we need to permantely sterlize drug addicts? You know addiction is a behavior that can be overcome right? So why on earth are we treating it like a genetic diease? No I would not be in favor of offering cash for sterilzation because I do not want my tax dollars paying for eugenic programs. That is socialism.
Socialism is a centralized government that owns the means of production.
Population control can happen in a decentralized economy/state.
Why don't you go visit some children with fetal alcohol children and tell them how lucky they are to be born outside of a socialist state and that their permanent retardation is a behavior that can be overcome then invite them to come live with you when their parents are dead and they are middle aged and unable to care for themselves.
Have you ever heard of charity? Why do you insist that if the government does not take care of the poor or feeble, no one will? Fetal alcohol syndrome is horrible but what can we really do about it? Is the state going to follow mothers around and watch if they drink? Moreover fetal alcohol syndrome happen in all economic classes. Are you going to offer a middleclass family $3,000 dollars to sterilize themselves?LOL.
How does charity decrease the global population so all who live on this earth can have a quality standard of living? Do you know what would happen if TOMORROW everyone in China and India began to consume the way we do?
Do you know how desperate middle class drunks are to quit? Or that people in half million dollar homes limit their medical care to what insurance pays? The middle class are poor people too. Trade treatment for sterilization and everyone wins.
Do a little research into the relapse rates of drug addiction, and the long lasting health effects. Then think, with a little compassion, what it would be like to be born addicted to crack, to a mother who from time to time during your life leaves you with friends or relatives to go off on a binge. A life of pain, disability, and insecure emotional attachments--you want more of this?
You do realize that there were no such things as "crack babies" right? That was media nonsense and Doctors in the 90's proved it was a baseless sensationalist claim. Relapses does not prove drug addiction is genetic. All it proves is that drug addiction is a personality disorder.
Then lets get back to fetal alcohol syndrome. Some drunk has a relapse while she's pregnant and her baby is born with irreparable damage. Mind you, I'm not objecting to the care the child will require all his life. We will always have injured people who require lifelong care. I'm objecting to the idea that a child should be born to live in limitation and suffering all his life, and be dependent on strangers who do not love him when his parents are gone. Why not sterilized the mom?
Right now, when we "pay poor women to have babies" through welfare, we are selectively "breeding" for the traits that create poverty and dependence on the government. Perhaps "we the people" who through our elected representatives determine public policies might like to limit the number of children the lazy indigent pop out for us to support with our taxes?
So we the people should give the government the power to regulate the physical bodies of others because they are on welfare? LOL and you actually trust the government not to abuse this power and later seek to regulate us tax paying and "decent" Americans? Government is never the answer but always a part of the problem.These clowns can't even deliver the mail on time and you want to give them charge over human reproduction? HAHAH !!!!
As someone possessing decidedly libertarian views I would never agree to give the government the power over our bodies ( I feel the "War on Drugs" is wrong). However, welfare needs to be reformed. There needs to be an agreement made that when one accepts welfare, they are not allowed to have any more children. If they reproduce regardless, their welfare status should be revoked. As taxpayers we should not be subsidizing the behavior of those with no self-control and no motivation to work.
"To this end, I should propose a regulation to be made declaring that no child born from any marriage taking place after the expiration of a year from the same date of the law, and no illegitimate child born two years from the same date, should be entitled to parish assistance." Malthus. In plain english Malthus wanted bastards to starve to death in other to control the pop of the poor. That is classic negative eugenics.
Then again, in a primitive hunter-gatherer society what would happen to the man and woman that had more kids than they could feed and otherwise support? Malthus is merely stating that if you can't take care of children without welfare, don't have any. Is that not re-establishing the natural controls on human population that were in place centuries and millenia before?
Who says that hunter gather society was the "natural" state of man? It was an earlier pre civilization state but what makes it natural or more authentic then our modern society? Who knows what would happen to children who could not be fed. Maybe they would starve maybe they would steal from their neighbors, maybe the community would support them. It is all irrelevent to the discusion of populations in our time. Maybe we should also stop giving the poor vacines since diease too was a control.
There were fewer children who could not be fed, because woman on a subsistence diet are not likely to conceive in times of hardship. Nursing mothers on a high protein diet (meat from hunters, fewer carbs from her own foraging because she's slowed down with a baby :) are not going to conceive again for a few years. No Irish twins among the gatherer/hunter. Children foraged with the women and fed themselves. Food was labor intensive, but plentiful, no need to steal.
Even in herding/farming society there were community controls on population. The origin of marriage and punishment for having sex outside marriage was probably a measure of population control or family planning.
funny that religious types are then OPPOSED to eugenics, because of course their meme has expanded out of control and has become expansionist. (breed maximally to conquer every enviroment)
Tribal societies had a nice organic religion that enhanced life. When religion got centralized and powerful, the emphasis changed from the survival and flourishing of the small group to the benefit of the church. Priests were required to be celibate so they would not have heirs other than the church. Couples were forbidden contraception so there would be a surplus of cheap labor and a "population bomb" solidifying church power. Religious types today are totally divorced from earthly reality.
Precisely! How else but through taboos, codes, "commandments" and other religious laws could early humans be guided?! Religion is no longer necessary for the survival of humankind, but thank its creators for its resilience and longevity. It is quite the tough "virus".
I cannot understand how people that belive in evolution cannot accept Eugenics.
Eugenics is improving the human race. If you have cancer and are going to die at 15 but thanks to medicine we can treat(never cure, you can't change the genes of a person) and that person gets married and passes their genes in the end humanity is going down the drain
If you keep putting crap in the genetic code sooner or later things like cancer will be common, very common
No one should be sterilized. Its too late anyway, they are either going start killing people off by the millions or they will have a ww3 because at least they reap some personal benefits of war, unlike us...
eugenics isnt a scientific field. watch my video about eugenics to see why eugenics doesnt work in science. I use the mathematical equation provided by the hardy wienberg law to disprove eugenics.
The main problems with eugenics is that intelligent control of evolution doesn't allow for random mutations creating a higher form, and that humans can't properly know what is the best way to evolve. If an ape had been able to control it's own evolution, you wouldn't have gotten humans, you'd have gotten bigger, stronger apes. They wouldn't have selected for intelligence. Who can say what the best direction for humanity to evolve in is? Intelligence, strength, or something else entirely?
that's true except that the state we're in right now hardly any evolution can take place and natural selection is dead because even the dumbest people live long enough to reproduce. Since there are so many of us it's hard for a "good" or a "bad" mutation to spread. There is a very mute chance of humans evolving anymore into a higher species.
haha as far as im concerned the people who came up with this whole concept has the genes of a serial killer and whoever thinks they have superior genes should go kill themselves because trying to play god is a very dangerous thing. It just proves that humans cannot govern themselves. Science has failed this world.
people who came up with this concept didn't necessarily think that they wouldn't be the ones to be sterilized. I personally think that only people with IQs higher than 160 should be allowed to reproduce and my IQ is in the mid 130s. I am willing to be sterilized so a higher species can originate. And also so that we don't destroy this planet with overpopulation.
Clever remark. But try looking up the word „technocracy in a dictionary because its not synonymous with just using technology. In the same way as not every country where religion is practiced can be called a theocracy.
OK I've looked it up. Interesting, but I don't see your point. You asked who would do the cleaning and factory work. Machines already do these things. And not just in the streets or factories, but also in my home. In fact machines are enhancing virtually every aspect of lives and have been for a while.
But whats your point about this Technocracy thing? Having a government system where the most knowledgeable people run things, rather than those who are wealthy - seems to be a different topic.
Wow Alex Jones sure shot himself in the foot with this clip. He couldn't anymore wrong about Charles Darwin and the Theory of Evolution. What history book did find this crap? Paranoid dumbass guide to history.
The goverment that chooses Eugenics first is the goverment that will oneday rule the world, as the rest will be but lowly animals in the shadows of their greatness.
Let us pay, that the government that makes that choice is a democratic one were all people are free.
ps.
Eugenics by harmless sterilization with aloud adoptions for sterilized parents. (most moral solution possible)
We should start by sterilizing only violent offenders, (rapists and murders) and see how that works out.
No. We should only be sterilizing the genetically inferior. That would be the limit. For instance if you have Diabetes, MS, Diabetes etc you should not be allowed to breed. Same thing if you are retarded etc. We should only sterilized what is physically obvious otherwise its subject to interpretation and that is dangerous and cannot happen.
Dude diabetes is not a genetic disease and sooner or late we're gonna find a cure for diabetes. I do think that people with GENETIC disorders should be sterilized unless they happen to have an IQ of 160 or higher.
Eugenics is a cult, not a science. It is born of the same egocentric, psychopathic and sadisic vision that views everyone but themselves to be objects, not individuals. Also others are just there for their benefit. The fact that it creates a hell on earth is good to such individuals as the world is suffering for their personal gratification. Equality and Diversity are words loathed and despised by such individuals. The viewing of oneself as superior to others is the Narcissistic part of things.
If you saw Einstien walking down the street and didn't recognize him, would you think he was a genius? ALL PREDJUICE IS BASED ON IGNORANCE! Eugenics is evil.
Eugenics is fine and very promising science. It's just Hitler and other "contributors" perverted eugenics in the eyes of the Humanity. The true eugenics is not to eleminate blacks or to benefit whites and rich as many people are thinking. But it is to improve peoples genetic fund and to minimize spreading inherited diseases etc.(so called genetic load). Of course smart, creative and healthy individuals would have an advatage, but in the end this is the way all of us want our children to be.
simple & best solution to the world's problems, and everyone wins: a global one-child policy and giving the rich tax breaks for every extra child they have.with this we can also have child health care. If we don't the entire human race is doomed
Actually, in Western Countries the opposite is happening (see 'Dysgenics: Genetic Deterioration in Modern Populations' by Richard Lynn).
Certainly in terms of IQ, people of above average IQ have fewer children than people of below-average IQ. Intelligence is to a significant extent inherite (as shown by twin- and adoption-studies) so you can expect future populations to, on average, have lower IQ's. Could be a problem in advanced, information-based societies?
IQ tests are very subjective (they're a con) and don't address other kinds of abilities than cognitive (for one with a certain education). What is the point of being smart, strong, healthy if you are cruel, sadistic cannot feel for others or have empathy. One is just a monster machine: A manufactured product of a Psychopathic Élite!
Malthusians and the House of SaxeCoburgGotha can literally shove a giant piece of shit in their mouth/s. Reason being is because they have taken over Britain physically and metaphorically with their money and theories. Both of which have collaborated with the prospects of taking away British liberty and what have u
dudewherescar1 2 weeks ago
Akibadono, cite anything or anywhere that proves Darwin's theory was right. I would like to see that statement backed up with the truth, not yours or someone elses opinion. You show me that Darwin's THEORY has been proven true, and I will back you 100%, all the way.
GodsGreiner 4 months ago
Society's rich can become poor with losses, in jobs, health or abilities. Any human being in society either rich, middleclass or poor could become a victim of job loss, loss of health or loss of abilities in society. Poor might become more secure in finances, if they apply themselves to finding an ability to secure themselves employment/new skills.Breasmilk is free, & if of good quality, can help provide brain & body with nutrients/Immunity. Formula costs society & not all formulas are healthy.
mylovesofmylife 5 months ago
Depression can result from genetic mental illness, Depression & Mental Illness is not limited to genetics. Depression & Mental illness, apart of humanity can develop in person/s people consider perfect. Diagnosis of Mental Illness/Disability & IQ is not always evident. People have potential to improve & be useful.Society took away a natural life of people living together with natures resources. Society created overpopulation in immigration, resulted in drug/alcohol abuse & other negative factors
mylovesofmylife 5 months ago
Never allow another man to tell you where & when to create life. These are merely men, just like yourself.
SouthLondonsREAL 6 months ago
Comment removed
MrJflk 7 months ago in playlist EUGENICS DARWIN
eugenics or dysgenics, its your choice
otacon451 11 months ago
It's funny how the abused byproducts of ages past have an opinion on eugenics... we are living in social darwinism, your told what to think, without the ability to form your own thoughts on the matter due to lack of relivent info. Only the most corrupt and their offspring are safe from the murderus tendancies of such faulty reasoning. Guess that's why belife in things is so important to those who have no real desire to ever really think, but are quite happy to post and support redundant theory.
PsycoticRetard 1 year ago 4
What right does someone have to FORCE another human being away from having kids? It'd be great for the human race to "evolve" into a stronger, smarter species, but forcing the issue like this is taking a step in the wrong direction
MinGophers 1 year ago
@MinGophers What right does the goverment have to tell us not to kill other people ? It'd be great for the human race to be more peaceful and safe but forcing the issue like this is taking a step in the wrong direction.
painkillerzman 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Free energy has been here all along ,But there are very powerfull forces that want to supress the technology,Get a motor that works with the power of magnets only at LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM ,Free yourself!
robwilli4546 1 year ago
There's a Malthusian problem right now in Haiti. Malthus was right. If we had mass Eugenics, that would be really awesome. I want to develop a superhuman race. Enough of this special olympics crap and coddling the retards and other messed up subhumans and undesirables.
XanaduZune 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The Oil companies are trying their best to stop free energy ideas from spreading to common people.
We need to put an end to this corruption ,start generating your own electricity now.
Look for the LT MAGNET MOTOR in youtube video search. Join the Revolution!!
lavernedi 1 year ago
According to Wikipedia, Darwin theorized about a "natural selection" that, in his concept, had nothing to do with "survival of the fittest", because this selection was NOT based on competition or "fitness" of any kind.(for ex. the coelacanth has no predators, so it needs no fitness) He was later introduced to the idea. Anyway, I should take a look at The Origin of the Species, but I feel Alex a little biased here.
LesPaul2006 1 year ago
Man all you atheists sure value life...
thepeacecat 1 year ago
lol,..instead they produced...REtards...serves them right
ekingh22 1 year ago
I have asked this before and i will ask again, how do you stop spontanious mutations in a healthy gene pool? You cant the same genetic diseases will be around no matter what and eugenics cant stop it. These mutations happen when ever, thats why two people who are not related can have the same genetic diseaes. Two healthy parents does not always equal healthy offspring.
cerberus1874 1 year ago
@cerberus1874 How would anyone draw a link between eugenics and preventing random mutation?? Eugenics is solely about increasing the frequency of good traits and reducing the bad. 2 healthy people may bear children that have a random unforeseeable and bad mutation, that mutation is now in the childrens dna and will be passed on if they choose to have children themselves. This is where eugenics comes in and says 'have a second think about having kids'
JeanLouie1106 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Thanks to morons like Alex Jones, eugenics and genetic engineering get a bad rap. New flash idiots, improving our genetic structure is a GOOD THING!! HURR DURR!! I didn't think that needed explaining, now STFU with your conspiracy theory bullshit.
Father0Blivion 1 year ago
how come whenever you search "eugenics" all you can find is paranoid mumbo-jumbo a la alex jones, bleeding-heart melodrama or religious propaganda?
ebola4fun 1 year ago
Paul Ehrlich predicted wide-scale starvation for the U.S. by the 1980's in his stellar tome: "The End of Affluence." "Dr." Ehrlich supports W.H.O.'s tireless efforts to sterilize 3rd-World women through serums and subcutaneous implants.
OneDollarBook 1 year ago
if those who is educated talk like that then why you need education now i am not saying there is no need for education it is just a thought
sharafudin2 1 year ago
Eugenics. Good for horses, bad for politics. You can get tested for Down's Syndrome and coat hanger the useless eater into a biohazard bag. Same dif. Only religious crackpots pretend eugenics doesn't apply to people.
woofer0doofer 1 year ago 6
@woofer0doofer I'm sure alot of politicians have that, yes.
pandararya00 1 year ago
Having kids is like programming, garbage in...garbage out.
JRD123456 1 year ago
@JRD123456 not quite.
MinGophers 1 year ago
we need eugenics today
bamsemann123 1 year ago
A Quality Control and Financial Portfolio survey should be necessary before people have kids in order to ensure they are born smart and good looking and have a decent inheritance should The parents die...
NinjaChampionKO 1 year ago 2
Support those brave men.
IVomitOnYourGod 1 year ago
๏̯͡๏
comedytracker 2 years ago
Many religious institutions had already perfected the science of eugenics long before Darwin, or Malthus, documented the practice scientifically. The rampant culling of non-believers, both human and not, and the selected annihilation of civilizations across the globe from the 16th through the 19th centuries remains one of the finest applications of eugenics in all of history. The logic of the Christian stamp of acceptance/condemnation is indistinguishable from that of Hitler.
charadester 2 years ago
What???
So now Jesus was pro eugenics....i tell you what....i wil give you 300 dollars out of my check if you can post any quote said by Jesus who can be trace with book chapter and # that is pro eugenics....and if you can't please let us know why Dawkins is in favor of eugenics? and why you don't adress that?
why if even Leonard Darwin(charles darwin's son) was in charge for the eugenics programs under nazi germany after Francis Galton if The Darwins were so against eugenics?
breedofthe45 1 year ago
Jesus wasn't pro-eugenics. Never said he was. Christianity as practiced through history has categorized people into two groups: believers and nonbelievers. Christians are trained by the Bible to renounce anyone who isn't one of their own kind. Classic eugenics.
charadester 1 year ago
Christianity is categorized by two people like you said belivers and nonebelivers but what you fail to adress was that the whole goal of christianism according to Jesus is to TURN the nonebelivers INTO belivers no matter their race or color or poor or rich, my friend,eugenics was ancient for pegan religions cmon man you know this,do your hate against christians make you re-write history to turn the tables to protect your belief system?
the romans did a lot of crimes,but none like eugenics.
breedofthe45 1 year ago
This video suggests only two camps... the evil Darwinists who ally with Nazis to preserve only the best specimens of humanity, and the loving Christians who offer deliverance from such evil behavior. Rubbish. Fundamentalist Christianity is a powerful discrimination force with a singular mission to convert or destroy, by militant means if necessary the heathen nonbelievers of the world. It is amusing to see Christians feign ignorance of this most central imperative from their own God.
charadester 1 year ago
Whatever you said Dawkins,but your statement is not accurate but more personal,i don't think Francis Galton and the Darwin family tree(ironic) were obligated by a bunch of priests to do peer scientific reviews to promote the most inhuman holocaust in the HISTORY of this planet,hell even today half of russia don't know what tha fuck is christianism,Stalin kill 60 in less than 12 years,the crusades kill 4 million in 300 years!
ohh you people also have a lot blood over your darwinian crap.
breedofthe45 1 year ago
"Stalin kill 60 MILLION in less than 12 years...thank you....my bad.."
breedofthe45 1 year ago
@breedofthe45 Any practice resembling eugenics is an ethical problem more serious today due to our new-found knowledge in genetic engineering. It's practiced by any group that feels that their clan is superior to all others. Muslim culture feels the same way as Christians regarding their God-given supremacy over everyone else. The two faiths dislike one another because they share so many common traits to control. They've used many culling practices to achieve that end. Smells like eugenics.
charadester 1 year ago
you can call it whatever you want,
you want to twist the eugenics into religion you have to go to every single universities in the planet and tell them all the documentaries and books and researchs and studies done by historians that they are wrong and they need to fix it,tell them your name is charadester and you will like them to stop doing documentaries about the holocaust and the social darwinism that the book "the origins of the species"created a religion for racist elite people.
breedofthe45 1 year ago
Simply blame one group for all the ill is foolish to say the least, no need to clutch straws the clip makes no assertion of "good ole' Christianity", btw I'm agnostic.
"Absolute power corrupts absolutely" - Lord Acton, no truer words have ever been stated. The fact of the matter is if there is no checks and balances in govt., you'll find yourself in a dictatorship. This sole fact is true whether it be theocratic regimes in Iran or Saudia Arabia, or atheist regimes in the USSR or China.
CosmicCannonBall 1 year ago
I agree.
charadester 1 year ago
We are who we are. Hating ourselves is not productive. Plastic surgery has its practical side, especially for people who have gone through windshields.
OneDollarBook 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Your an idiot who ever made this video
canenangel 2 years ago
So, simply stating facts the can be documented makes one an idiot? Perhaps you are the one who is the idiot.
intheyearzero 2 years ago 3
The river Ganges nourishes over 200 million people in India. It could not do so if it did not carry a lot more water in it than usual. The additional amount of water comes from the glaciers in the Himalaya mountains which are melting away fast due to global warming.
In a few years only, the glaciers will be gone and the Ganges will carry a lot less water. By that time the population will have increased by another couple of million people.
Will they call it a "natural desaster"?
flamifer 2 years ago
Comment removed
jetplane2006 2 years ago
Everybody should have to ask for permission to have a child. If you can prove that you will be able to feed and educate it, I see no reason, why that permission should not be given.
Naturally, rich people will have more children just to show off with them. But when the parents die, the inheritance will be apportioned to more heirs. Making them all somewhat less rich.
Poor people on the other hand would have only one child to support. There would be even enough money for education left.
flamifer 2 years ago
That is the world ! Why USA kills so many human on earth ? Concerning democracy, freedome and liberty ?! No for Control ! Welcome in the NWO, slave ! I hate this system so mutch lies lies and lies in the mainstream media ! It is a mad hell world !
GrandadmiralThakain 2 years ago
Social welfare is to eugenics as hippies are to war hawks.
CynicalAmerican 2 years ago
That's sick... just absolutely sick.
blacknosugarnocream 2 years ago
the problem with this idea is WHO is more suitable to breed and who is not i bet most ppl answers are along racial and economical lines. as soon as you buy into quantity control the next logical degree is quality control.
orgnice 2 years ago
i would say quality control certainly based on a series of tests, with some randomization of scores to account for any gaps in our knowledge.
You can formulate it pragmatically/altruistically rather than in an "elitist" "supremacist" way as follows - the Breeding Licence should depend on your *ability to look after others*
walter0bz 2 years ago
tbh, if some pharmaceutical company figures out a chemical that makes people sterile.. i say they should release it :)
walter0bz 2 years ago
i dont trust alex jones hes a conservative
thegreatestbak 2 years ago
The world is coming to the end. 10,000 murder suicide rates in few days.
You want this dangerous game you got it.
NauticalFILMS 2 years ago
darwinism is a massive hoax
iorixs 2 years ago
you guys are fucking stupid if you dont understand how the idea evolved
mmooseknucklepieface 2 years ago
The ONLY two human beings ever to exist whom are genetically superior to the rest of humanity include the following.
*Justin Timberlake
*Tiger Woods
youngdones 2 years ago
Eugenetics is a scam, how exaclty to you take only good traits from a person. Everything has a good side and a bad side. The "Super-race" can be physically stronger or faster but not smarter or they can be smarter but have no compassion. What have any scientist or inventor created that didn't have a downside to it?
tauhrahm 2 years ago
How about R. Buckminster Fuller and his geodesic dome or Dymaxion map?
How about DOS and windows?
There are others
Slavestorms 2 years ago
What does that have to do with what I'm saying?
tauhrahm 2 years ago
oh NO WHAT WE WOULD DO WITHOUT ALL THE DUMB NIGGERS AND WHITE TRASH THAT WERE RIDDEN FROM THE COUNTRY DUE TO EUGENICS. I THINK WE WOULD COLLAPSE
dave997 2 years ago
The crackpot fundamentalists who put this together (and all the other lies they attempt to fill the Internet and other stupid minds with) will - pray God! - be rejected by evolution and bred out of existence. The sooner the better for everyone else on the planet.
englisheditor 2 years ago
Hypothesis:
The elites dont actually want eugenics. They're happy for the masses to down-breed into weak,obidient slaves.
e.g.- Socialist states want to breed weak people dependant on central control;
- Bankers are happy to lend landless people breeding-space to create more debt-slaves
More selective breeding would actually INCREASE individual freedom.
so thats why everyone is now brainwashed to associate Eugenics with hitlers' Genocides (completely different concepts)
walter0bz 2 years ago
One of the few sane and rational comments here. Thank you for thinking critically.
thoth81 2 years ago
What would be the point of breeding weaker people? We have finite resources on this earth. Those who live affluent lives have to protect their quality of life from the "masses" who really aren't worth anything, except in a metaphysical/religious sense.
Selective breed WILL increase individual freedom and a thinner population will enhance it.
TheBadBandana 2 years ago
Who should have the power to control selective breeding? The state? The rich? The idea that some organization can control whether or not an individual has a right to reproduce is well inline with totalitarianism. Whether this totalitarianism is enforced by the state, a corporation or power elite matters not. What does matter is that individual liberties are spat upon by such a system.
Plato86 2 years ago
how about "democratic eugenics"
individuals vote on eachother
- only top portion of scores allowed to breed
-sliding scale , unlimited babies for top score, 2 for next, 1 for some, zero for most some randomization to account for what science&present understanding missed
-target population = 2billion max, 500m min
walter0bz 2 years ago
Sounds like mob rule to me, with democractic eugenics we would have a tyranny of the majority. How about individual selective breeding, where each individual chooses whom they wish to reproduce with, and the rest of society be damned?
Plato86 2 years ago
thats fine until you have socialism where other peoples taxes will pay for them .. or when people go into "r-selection" mode, multiplying like a virus until every natural resource is consumed before moving to the next area.
i'd prefer some sort of formal *quality-test* for the breeding licence, but i put forward the "democratic eugenics" idea to counter usual cries of "authoritarian state!!"
i'd also quite like "VHEMT", that would be better than the status quo.
walter0bz 2 years ago
What if--some crimes like child abuse/child neglect, endangerment of innocents, drunk or drugged driving, acts that indicate sociopathy or some other genetic problem, or problem that would make a person an unfit parent, came with a choice of intensive therapy, prison time and long probation, or short therapy + permanent sterilization
What if we paid non offenders who are still unfit to reproduce a tidy sum of money to be sterilized? Made sterilization a requirement to get welfare?
TheBadBandana 2 years ago
i'm convinced a lot of crime is caused by bad enviroment , and of course a good enviroment comes from balance.. not spreading the parents resources too thinly, and parent's competence
in short, whether you beleive in nature or nuture most of these measures make sense
walter0bz 2 years ago
Remember, there are too many people. We can't afford all the perfectly good people who might be born. Part of the goal has to be to thin our numbers.
Remember we are not talking about eliminating people currently living, but preventing people not get conceived. We need to have fewer of us. Period.
Fewer undesireables, and fewer desireables. Then, every human life in existence has a better quality of life than she would if we left it all to chance.
TheBadBandana 2 years ago
"We need to have fewer of us. Period" Would you be willing to sterlize yourself to improve the quality of life for the rest of mankind? If your say no then I say why should you expect others to do the same for you?
Plato86 2 years ago 2
i for one am willing to commit to zero kids as i think its inhumane to bring people into this world
(and i would almost extend that to say say, having babies is an inhumane act)
Another altruistic Eugenics/"child bearing licence" idea:-
-if you want kids, if there are any Orphans, you must prove your parenting ability by first adopting.
-result - no Orphans.
walter0bz 2 years ago
Are you willing to commit to physical sterilization? If not then why?
Plato86 2 years ago
I'm already beyond the age of responsible childbearing. My grandchildren will be assets to the gene pool.
As much as I'd like dozens of them, I know that if everyone like me had dozens, none of them could have a very nice life. I want them to have a nice life.
TheBadBandana 2 years ago
Walter, it scares me a little that the most intelligent, most sensitive, best educated men I know, in my family and among my friends, have exactly that attitude.
It makes me wonder if I made a mistake. I love the younger generation in my family, but I might die not knowing they have a life worth living, and that makes me so sad.
TheBadBandana 2 years ago
How many children do you intend to have when you grow up and how many sacrifices do you expect people in the third world to make for the comfort of your family?
TheBadBandana 2 years ago
I am not asking other people to sacrifice parenthood for ME.
I believe we should all limit our procreation to give future generations (I will be dead) a spacious world of natural beauty.
I also believe we should make it socially acceptable for people who don't particularly want children to decline to have them. Sociopaths, for example, can't love. Give them something pleasurable, like money, so they don't pass on their condition, or harm an innocent by being a bad parent.
TheBadBandana 2 years ago
Is not eugenics a form of socialism itself? After all the main argument for eugenics, that society as a whole needs to take control of the means of reproduction for the betterment of humanity, is socialist at its core. Indeed people often speak of the Nazi's and eugenics but every socialist and communist state has had or still has atleast one selective breeding program. Adults do not need the state telling them how and with whom they can breed.
Plato86 2 years ago
When adults are not responsible enough to think through the lives their children will live in an overcrowded world, they do indeed need someone smarter and wiser telling them how to breed.
Truth of the matter is we don't have many adults anymore. We have big fat lazy overgrown kids who don't have the self control not to be outrageously fat and dismally broke. These are precisely the people who need to be paid off not to reproduce.
TheBadBandana 2 years ago
Yet as idiotic as you claim these people are, I am willing to bet they are smart enough not to sterilize themselves for little money. Indeed if we look at history we see that it is only when sterilization is mandatory can eugenic programs function.
Plato86 2 years ago
People in Iran sell their kidneys.
Go into the nearest plasma collection center and look at the people in there selling their body fluids for twenty or fifty dollars. "Donate" yourself for the experience and be open to talk to the people on either side of you.
Don't ask them if they'd be sterilized for money--that's impolite--but just watch them and ask yourself if they need another child ever and if a few thousand could help them a LOT.
TheBadBandana 2 years ago
It would be unethical not to fully inform the patient of the procedure they were undergoing. Again no matter how desperate a person is the are not going to spay themselves for a few thousands. The drive to reproduce is fundamental and will overcome monetry incentives.A kidney means little to most, however the ability to have children matters much.
Plato86 2 years ago
You are unaware of the many people who choose to be child free, or who believe it is not right to bring a child into the world as it is. The most intelligent and sensitive are making this choice, while as you said, those dominated by their animal drives are overpopulating the earth. We have to change that around somehow.
We won't really know whether cash incentives will work until we offer them, now will we?
TheBadBandana 2 years ago
yes this is a sort of reverse eugenics effect.
Intelligent enough to see how the world is ? dont breed
Dont care?(or you dont have access to enough information to see it?) - go ahead and flood the earth with offspring
my position is:
[1] religion was an essential civilizing element
[2] we have enough information to out evolve it now
[3] but to completely ditch religion, we need a pragmatic, scientific/economically based eugenics programme to take its place
walter0bz 2 years ago
What we know is that reproductive medicine is a booming industry pulling in millions of dollars each year. The free market does not lie, people want to have children and they are willing to spend big dollars to do so. Now if people are actually willing to go into debt to have children, what makes you believe people will sterilize themselves for a measel $3,000. A couple who wished to have children would probably pay double that amount for the woman to serve as a surrogate.
Plato86 2 years ago
From an altruistic perspective - i would advocate only allowing people to be brought into the world if their parents can give them a good start
e.g.
how about a "Minimum Inheritence At Birth" - a certain amount of capital (land/shares/savings) that the parents must be able to sign over to their kids in the form of a trust, with this being a barrier to cross for breeding-rights
That would ensure, for example, people aren't being brought into the world as 'debt-slaves' or in poverty etc etc.
walter0bz 2 years ago
Property interests have little to do with being a good parent. The obvious example is Britney Spears. She can leave her children more inheritance than most moms, but she also drops them on their heads.
With a smaller population, I suspect upward mobility would return, and a genteel poverty would also be workable.
Anything other than encouraging people to self select for child free lives (making it socially acceptable) gets too creepy for me.
TheBadBandana 2 years ago
If there was my "Minimum Inheritance At Birth" concept, Britney's kids would be born with funding to hire professional adoptive parents.
mobility: the DEPTH of the worlds heirachy is a little shocking at the minute, and this is due to the huge number of interconected elements that gives so many opportunity for middlemen to establish control. Agree smaller population is a Good Thing.
walter0bz 2 years ago
I'm not ready for a "breeding license". You could end up with "illegal people" that way. No one should be stigmatized by having an "unlicensed pregnancy".
First, offer incentives to those people who currently make babies for "the check" to be sterilized, so they can choose, more money or children. Some will choose to make their own way and have children without welfare. Let them. It's the babies born for the check I feel sorry for. I'd like to spare human beings that...risk..
TheBadBandana 2 years ago
It's not so individual now. How many babies are born because mama wants more welfare check, or a family wants an immigration "anchor baby"? How many women have children they don't really like, much less love? Think about it. The mom who dragged her kid by a leash through Verizon store, moms who kill their kids intentionally or through negligence, the mom who killed her kids driving drunk down the wrong lane of the highway with ten shots of vodka in her blood and more in her stomach?
TheBadBandana 2 years ago
No doubt there are horrible parents out there but that has nothing to do with individuality. The point is regardless of reasons why people have children, they still freely chose to have them. Whether you like it our not people are making the individual choice to reproduce with whom they please and their is nothing anybody can do about it.
Plato86 2 years ago
Some people freely choose to have children because with each baby comes a tax incentive or a welfare check. We can cut those rewards OFF so only people who really want a child have a child.
We can protect the rights of the next generation of children to NOT be born to a sociopath or a child abuser or a violent parents or a crazy parent by educating and encouraging people who will not be good enough parents to not become parents.
TheBadBandana 2 years ago
We can't afford unlimited babies from anyone. What we could do is stop tax cuts and other incentives for having children. We should certainly stop welfare payments to people who have babies they cannot possibly support--place the children in adoptive homes--and watch the numbers of poor people's "oopsies" plummet. This sounds horrible, but if we paid the less fit $3,000 to be sterilized, they'd do it voluntarily. Fertility medicine should also go out the window, let nature select.
TheBadBandana 2 years ago
I agree that welfare should be reduced, if not abolished altogether. People should not be relying on the state for survival, that is what private charities are for. In the same respect I do not want my tax dollars paying for some absurd sterilization program. If welfare is abolished it would not be necessary.
Plato86 2 years ago
Three thousand is a tiny fraction it takes to support a welfare child. In addition to welfare, if the child has a disability welfare parents are quick to collect that extra social security check.
If welfare is abolished, but sterilization is not offered, there will still be children born to welfare parents who will either try to raise them "off grid" or who will go to adoptive families who will suffer hardship of their own, and on behalf of the child.
TheBadBandana 2 years ago
If an adoptive family makes the decision to adopt " welfare children" then what is the problem? Neither society nor the state is being burdened. No one is forcing them to take these children, it is what they want. In truth you support sterlization not because of welfare concerns but because of population/ gene pool concerns.
Plato86 2 years ago
The problem is that there are too many people in the world. We need to have fewer children. More open space, fewer siblings and cousins, get it?
It won't affect our lifestyle but it would be a great gift to give future (smaller) generations.
TheBadBandana 2 years ago
A ridiculous argument:
"too many people in the world"
Good thing there's an entire universe out there waiting to be populated, right? Floating cities, orbital habitation platforms, off-Earth colonies...these things are coming, along with the near unimaginable resources that nanotechnology will make available. Overpopulation is a meaningless concept now.
thoth81 2 years ago
IMO near term growth threatens acheiving these things.
population should be kept stable (or even encouraged to decline) freeing up resources for reseach & development of the high tech you mention. once we've got orbital colonies / space-mirrors / fusion or whatever then another boom can occur.
(although i suspect that we'll just see the same problems amplified further... :) )
walter0bz 2 years ago
I see. You wouldn't turn the other way if Rapture Buses came to Rapture Christians away to special Fema Rapture Stations where they would just disappear...
TheBadBandana 2 years ago
I do support voluntary sterilization, with incentives, because of population/gene pool concerns.
My gene pool concerns are based on compassion for the as yet unborn. I think they deserve to be born into bodies free of deformity and pain. Life presents risk and emotional pain is just part of it, but give little babies the benefit of the best start they can have, in the most pleasant world we can leave them.
TheBadBandana 2 years ago
Would you be willing to sterilize yourself and help reduce the population of the Earth? You say there are too many people on the planet, so why not "be the change" and voluntarily sterilize yourself? Or do you think yourself to great a gift to the gene pool to sacrafice?
Plato86 2 years ago
You really trust people who can't work for a living to be able to use contraception correctly? There are some messed up people in the world.
Let me ask you this--would you be in favor of offering cash and treatment to a female addict in exchange for her voluntary permanent sterilization?
TheBadBandana 2 years ago
Why would we need to permantely sterlize drug addicts? You know addiction is a behavior that can be overcome right? So why on earth are we treating it like a genetic diease? No I would not be in favor of offering cash for sterilzation because I do not want my tax dollars paying for eugenic programs. That is socialism.
Plato86 2 years ago
Socialism is a centralized government that owns the means of production.
Population control can happen in a decentralized economy/state.
Why don't you go visit some children with fetal alcohol children and tell them how lucky they are to be born outside of a socialist state and that their permanent retardation is a behavior that can be overcome then invite them to come live with you when their parents are dead and they are middle aged and unable to care for themselves.
TheBadBandana 2 years ago
Have you ever heard of charity? Why do you insist that if the government does not take care of the poor or feeble, no one will? Fetal alcohol syndrome is horrible but what can we really do about it? Is the state going to follow mothers around and watch if they drink? Moreover fetal alcohol syndrome happen in all economic classes. Are you going to offer a middleclass family $3,000 dollars to sterilize themselves?LOL.
Plato86 2 years ago
How does charity decrease the global population so all who live on this earth can have a quality standard of living? Do you know what would happen if TOMORROW everyone in China and India began to consume the way we do?
Do you know how desperate middle class drunks are to quit? Or that people in half million dollar homes limit their medical care to what insurance pays? The middle class are poor people too. Trade treatment for sterilization and everyone wins.
TheBadBandana 2 years ago
no, there is such a thing as Addictive Personality, it is hereditary, i have it :)
there are many hereditary personality traits.
[but also many enviromentally learned things too]
outcome = 1/3rd genes, 1/3rd enviroment, 1/3rd luck.
create good enviroment with population control
select good genes with eugenics
only leave 1/3rd to chance.
walter0bz 2 years ago
Do a little research into the relapse rates of drug addiction, and the long lasting health effects. Then think, with a little compassion, what it would be like to be born addicted to crack, to a mother who from time to time during your life leaves you with friends or relatives to go off on a binge. A life of pain, disability, and insecure emotional attachments--you want more of this?
TheBadBandana 2 years ago
You do realize that there were no such things as "crack babies" right? That was media nonsense and Doctors in the 90's proved it was a baseless sensationalist claim. Relapses does not prove drug addiction is genetic. All it proves is that drug addiction is a personality disorder.
Plato86 2 years ago
Then lets get back to fetal alcohol syndrome. Some drunk has a relapse while she's pregnant and her baby is born with irreparable damage. Mind you, I'm not objecting to the care the child will require all his life. We will always have injured people who require lifelong care. I'm objecting to the idea that a child should be born to live in limitation and suffering all his life, and be dependent on strangers who do not love him when his parents are gone. Why not sterilized the mom?
TheBadBandana 2 years ago
Right now, when we "pay poor women to have babies" through welfare, we are selectively "breeding" for the traits that create poverty and dependence on the government. Perhaps "we the people" who through our elected representatives determine public policies might like to limit the number of children the lazy indigent pop out for us to support with our taxes?
TheBadBandana 2 years ago
So we the people should give the government the power to regulate the physical bodies of others because they are on welfare? LOL and you actually trust the government not to abuse this power and later seek to regulate us tax paying and "decent" Americans? Government is never the answer but always a part of the problem.These clowns can't even deliver the mail on time and you want to give them charge over human reproduction? HAHAH !!!!
Plato86 2 years ago
As someone possessing decidedly libertarian views I would never agree to give the government the power over our bodies ( I feel the "War on Drugs" is wrong). However, welfare needs to be reformed. There needs to be an agreement made that when one accepts welfare, they are not allowed to have any more children. If they reproduce regardless, their welfare status should be revoked. As taxpayers we should not be subsidizing the behavior of those with no self-control and no motivation to work.
thoth81 2 years ago
inbreeding is healthy
DAMOCLIES 2 years ago
Comment removed
imperialcrypt 2 years ago
I've kind of seen Alex Jones in a different light after this..
He's jumping to some rather odd conclusions here..
Thomas Malthus saw ideas like population control as Gods way of punishing mans lazy & over-productive nature..
His ideas were about a population naturally regulating itself by being too big to support itself..
It has nothing to do with eugenics..
You might as well be pointing the finger at George Orwell for creating the blueprint for a NWO..
DoubleIntruder 2 years ago
"To this end, I should propose a regulation to be made declaring that no child born from any marriage taking place after the expiration of a year from the same date of the law, and no illegitimate child born two years from the same date, should be entitled to parish assistance." Malthus. In plain english Malthus wanted bastards to starve to death in other to control the pop of the poor. That is classic negative eugenics.
Plato86 2 years ago
Then again, in a primitive hunter-gatherer society what would happen to the man and woman that had more kids than they could feed and otherwise support? Malthus is merely stating that if you can't take care of children without welfare, don't have any. Is that not re-establishing the natural controls on human population that were in place centuries and millenia before?
thoth81 2 years ago 3
Who says that hunter gather society was the "natural" state of man? It was an earlier pre civilization state but what makes it natural or more authentic then our modern society? Who knows what would happen to children who could not be fed. Maybe they would starve maybe they would steal from their neighbors, maybe the community would support them. It is all irrelevent to the discusion of populations in our time. Maybe we should also stop giving the poor vacines since diease too was a control.
Plato86 2 years ago
There were fewer children who could not be fed, because woman on a subsistence diet are not likely to conceive in times of hardship. Nursing mothers on a high protein diet (meat from hunters, fewer carbs from her own foraging because she's slowed down with a baby :) are not going to conceive again for a few years. No Irish twins among the gatherer/hunter. Children foraged with the women and fed themselves. Food was labor intensive, but plentiful, no need to steal.
TheBadBandana 2 years ago
Even in herding/farming society there were community controls on population. The origin of marriage and punishment for having sex outside marriage was probably a measure of population control or family planning.
TheBadBandana 2 years ago
yes.
religion = primative eugenics
funny that religious types are then OPPOSED to eugenics, because of course their meme has expanded out of control and has become expansionist. (breed maximally to conquer every enviroment)
walter0bz 2 years ago
Tribal societies had a nice organic religion that enhanced life. When religion got centralized and powerful, the emphasis changed from the survival and flourishing of the small group to the benefit of the church. Priests were required to be celibate so they would not have heirs other than the church. Couples were forbidden contraception so there would be a surplus of cheap labor and a "population bomb" solidifying church power. Religious types today are totally divorced from earthly reality.
TheBadBandana 2 years ago
"religion = primitive eugenics"
Precisely! How else but through taboos, codes, "commandments" and other religious laws could early humans be guided?! Religion is no longer necessary for the survival of humankind, but thank its creators for its resilience and longevity. It is quite the tough "virus".
thoth81 2 years ago
Hail Eugenics!!
IVomitOnYourGod 2 years ago
I guess Herbert Spencer is out of the picture lol.
Xandirfan 3 years ago
I cannot understand how people that belive in evolution cannot accept Eugenics.
Eugenics is improving the human race. If you have cancer and are going to die at 15 but thanks to medicine we can treat(never cure, you can't change the genes of a person) and that person gets married and passes their genes in the end humanity is going down the drain
If you keep putting crap in the genetic code sooner or later things like cancer will be common, very common
tHeWasTeDYouTh 3 years ago
Gene treatment isn't entierly synonymus with Eugenics.
MishaV84 2 years ago
No one should be sterilized. Its too late anyway, they are either going start killing people off by the millions or they will have a ww3 because at least they reap some personal benefits of war, unlike us...
Mcgregor813 3 years ago
eugenics isnt a scientific field. watch my video about eugenics to see why eugenics doesnt work in science. I use the mathematical equation provided by the hardy wienberg law to disprove eugenics.
truthofevolution 3 years ago
The main problems with eugenics is that intelligent control of evolution doesn't allow for random mutations creating a higher form, and that humans can't properly know what is the best way to evolve. If an ape had been able to control it's own evolution, you wouldn't have gotten humans, you'd have gotten bigger, stronger apes. They wouldn't have selected for intelligence. Who can say what the best direction for humanity to evolve in is? Intelligence, strength, or something else entirely?
blackwlf 3 years ago
that's true except that the state we're in right now hardly any evolution can take place and natural selection is dead because even the dumbest people live long enough to reproduce. Since there are so many of us it's hard for a "good" or a "bad" mutation to spread. There is a very mute chance of humans evolving anymore into a higher species.
galanoth17 3 years ago
haha as far as im concerned the people who came up with this whole concept has the genes of a serial killer and whoever thinks they have superior genes should go kill themselves because trying to play god is a very dangerous thing. It just proves that humans cannot govern themselves. Science has failed this world.
Mcgregor813 3 years ago 2
people who came up with this concept didn't necessarily think that they wouldn't be the ones to be sterilized. I personally think that only people with IQs higher than 160 should be allowed to reproduce and my IQ is in the mid 130s. I am willing to be sterilized so a higher species can originate. And also so that we don't destroy this planet with overpopulation.
galanoth17 3 years ago
here is a question for you? If everyone had an IQ of over 160, who would be working in the factories and cleaning the streets?
MishaV84 2 years ago
Machines.
WeAreHumanity 2 years ago
I knew someone is going to say that. But I don't think that a technocracy would be a very humain state.
MishaV84 2 years ago
Try saying that to me without the use of a machine.
WeAreHumanity 2 years ago 2
Clever remark. But try looking up the word „technocracy in a dictionary because its not synonymous with just using technology. In the same way as not every country where religion is practiced can be called a theocracy.
MishaV84 2 years ago
OK I've looked it up. Interesting, but I don't see your point. You asked who would do the cleaning and factory work. Machines already do these things. And not just in the streets or factories, but also in my home. In fact machines are enhancing virtually every aspect of lives and have been for a while.
But whats your point about this Technocracy thing? Having a government system where the most knowledgeable people run things, rather than those who are wealthy - seems to be a different topic.
WeAreHumanity 2 years ago
rofl! this thread is hilarious.
so true.
Machines = perfect answer.
AnarchyBegins 2 years ago
Alex Jones is really retarded and he and Ben Stein would probably be the best of friends.
EikC 3 years ago
LOL
Rahab111222 3 years ago
So what's wrong with eugenics? Sounds like a damn good idea - getting rid of the retards inhabiting this planet.
PeteUtonic 3 years ago
Wow Alex Jones sure shot himself in the foot with this clip. He couldn't anymore wrong about Charles Darwin and the Theory of Evolution. What history book did find this crap? Paranoid dumbass guide to history.
picardsong 3 years ago
FACT:
The goverment that chooses Eugenics first is the goverment that will oneday rule the world, as the rest will be but lowly animals in the shadows of their greatness.
Let us pay, that the government that makes that choice is a democratic one were all people are free.
ps.
Eugenics by harmless sterilization with aloud adoptions for sterilized parents. (most moral solution possible)
We should start by sterilizing only violent offenders, (rapists and murders) and see how that works out.
itCameFromEarth 3 years ago 2
No. We should only be sterilizing the genetically inferior. That would be the limit. For instance if you have Diabetes, MS, Diabetes etc you should not be allowed to breed. Same thing if you are retarded etc. We should only sterilized what is physically obvious otherwise its subject to interpretation and that is dangerous and cannot happen.
LeftLiberalSoCal 3 years ago
Dude diabetes is not a genetic disease and sooner or late we're gonna find a cure for diabetes. I do think that people with GENETIC disorders should be sterilized unless they happen to have an IQ of 160 or higher.
galanoth17 3 years ago
160???? super inteligent?????? lol
humantestdummy 3 years ago
Is I.Q. genetic?
Please tell me more :)
WeAreHumanity 2 years ago
you are saying I.Q. is not genetic?
Please tell me more :)
galanoth17 2 years ago
This section creeped me the fuck out
ILoveGoodFellas 3 years ago
I'm with you. Half the people writing here are creeping me out.
qpl4w3 2 years ago
Eugenics is a cult, not a science. It is born of the same egocentric, psychopathic and sadisic vision that views everyone but themselves to be objects, not individuals. Also others are just there for their benefit. The fact that it creates a hell on earth is good to such individuals as the world is suffering for their personal gratification. Equality and Diversity are words loathed and despised by such individuals. The viewing of oneself as superior to others is the Narcissistic part of things.
Isochest 3 years ago
If you saw Einstien walking down the street and didn't recognize him, would you think he was a genius? ALL PREDJUICE IS BASED ON IGNORANCE! Eugenics is evil.
loyallisa3 3 years ago
What are you trying to say? i don't see your point.
galanoth17 3 years ago
Eugenics is fine and very promising science. It's just Hitler and other "contributors" perverted eugenics in the eyes of the Humanity. The true eugenics is not to eleminate blacks or to benefit whites and rich as many people are thinking. But it is to improve peoples genetic fund and to minimize spreading inherited diseases etc.(so called genetic load). Of course smart, creative and healthy individuals would have an advatage, but in the end this is the way all of us want our children to be.
Maxnoviya 3 years ago
his last comment made me laugh problably the only time he's made me do that
tghooker 3 years ago
simple & best solution to the world's problems, and everyone wins: a global one-child policy and giving the rich tax breaks for every extra child they have.with this we can also have child health care. If we don't the entire human race is doomed
simplybornhuman 3 years ago
Actually, in Western Countries the opposite is happening (see 'Dysgenics: Genetic Deterioration in Modern Populations' by Richard Lynn).
Certainly in terms of IQ, people of above average IQ have fewer children than people of below-average IQ. Intelligence is to a significant extent inherite (as shown by twin- and adoption-studies) so you can expect future populations to, on average, have lower IQ's. Could be a problem in advanced, information-based societies?
jcas0167 3 years ago
IQ tests are very subjective (they're a con) and don't address other kinds of abilities than cognitive (for one with a certain education). What is the point of being smart, strong, healthy if you are cruel, sadistic cannot feel for others or have empathy. One is just a monster machine: A manufactured product of a Psychopathic Élite!
Isochest 3 years ago
I agree IQ isn't the be all & end all. They're not a con though - performance on them is strongly predictive of academic performance.
"What is the point of being smart, strong, healthy if you are cruel, sadistic cannot feel for others or have empathy."
Well, indeed that would qualify someone as a psychopath.
loadedh23 3 years ago
Goverments must issue a license for making babies! Fucking mongoloids breed like rats!! and others! ORDER GOD DAMN IT!
mareleblond98 3 years ago
fuck yes, not selective breeding, but controled.
foolsbetrippin 3 years ago
This seems correct to me. This seemed correct to me at age eight.
homerekker 3 years ago
maddog050 write:
"Christianity is in the majority and is weeding out minority religions and beliefs "
That's why the European Union in welcoming Christianity with open arms, right?
chopthehay 3 years ago
How is the EU welcoming Christianity with open arms again? The New World Order wants to exterminate religion, not embrace it.
MuckRaker777 3 years ago
i'm gonna marry me a strong hot women so the kids arent pieces of crap trash
BeefInjection69 3 years ago