| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Paleo-Conservative" |
| Date: |
26 Nov 2004 07:22:21 PM |
| Object: |
EUGENICS Would Create More Atheists |
The following is from http://www.neoeugenics.com/
Playing God is indeed playing with fire. But that is what we mortals
have done since Prometheus, the patron saint of dangerous discovery.
We play with fire and take the consequences, because the alternative
is cowardice in the face of the unknown. (Dworkin, 2000)
Humans are very much like our primate ancestors. Unfortunately, with
our larger intelligent brains, we have acquired the ability to foresee
our deaths as soon as we are able to understand life, at a very young
age. With this horror, we have instead of facing life with knowledge
that we have a brief time to live - a time to be made the most of - we
have turned back to our primitive instincts and succumbed to religion,
false beliefs, and submission to dominance by others.
The answer to this dilemma during most of this century, has been to
try and change human culture, assuming it is infinitely malleable,
leading to the agony of communism and the short comings of egalitarian
democracies. And in the rest of the world, despotism reigns under
numerous doctrines, with little hope for the people subjected to the
state's propaganda. This web page is dedicated to putting forth the
view that to change the human condition we must change the innate
nature of humans, that is, we must encourage the breeding of people
with a higher intellect, people better able to understand what
motivates them and who can eventually revolt against the subjugation
by the state or the controlling elite.
It is my contention that this can be done by focusing on innate human
traits we want to promote through a better understanding of behavior
genetics. But to promote eugenics as a secular religion, it becomes
necessary to begin with a political agenda to bring it about. Much of
what I advocate, in keeping with the understanding that evolution
occurs at the genetic, individual and group levels, has to do with
advancing both individual eugenics and group eugenics. That is, it
appears that eugenics can only be advanced in a world where nations
are free to advance their own interests without interference.
Anyone who is familiar with the United Nations, NATO, the European
Economic Union, and the New World Order knows that we are on the brink
of giving up national sovereignty for world totalitarianism, where a
central committee will dictate to the masses how to think and behave.
We see this happening now in Afghanistan and Iraq, where the United
States has decided that it can attack any nation that harbors
terrorists, of course forgetting that terrorism is how states often
come into existence. I advocate two primary future viable options for
eugenics: a return to nationalism, where competing nations will
experiment with various social and scientific agendas to raise their
peoples to higher levels of intelligence, followed by other traits the
population desires to promote; and/or, to increase group solidarity
and practice eugenics without borders. The second one has been
practiced by Jews for thousands of years, but it can be a dangerous
road to follow for it invariably leads to group conflict in the
nations where Jews dominate. Much of my writing has to do therefore
not with the technology of eugenics but with human nature and how we
react as competing groups.
Eugenics is here to stay, and the only question now is how severely
will political forces try to stamp it out and what group or nation
will be the victor in the end. But a more highly evolved human will be
the result and this process will continue unabated into the future.
Nietzsche's supermen are right around the corner waiting for their
creator to begin the task. We are their creator; they are our
children.
Finally, you may ask why so many of my articles are intertwined with
the Jewish approach to eugenics and why I use them over and over again
to make numerous points about human behavior AND about the need for
racial consciousness. First, Jews are one of the few identifiable
groups (actually, the Ashkenazi Jews specifically) who have practiced
eugenics with tenacious success that has raised their intelligence to
a remarkably high level, along with increasing group cohesiveness
leading to extreme ethnocentrism or xenophobia. Several issues arise
from this achievement. Because of the form of their genetic selection
process, they have primarily developed their verbal skills, making
them uniquely adept at manipulation, deception, propaganda, academics,
the media, etc. This would not normally be a problem, except that
they have managed with this verbal skill to control politics and
national policy, while those with other skills have built the
technological foundations of great nations in Europe and America.
That is, the Jewish contribution may not have been very great or even
negative, as their accumulation of far greater wealth than any other
ethnic group has to do with their abilities in manipulation of other
people through the power of words rather than through constructing or
building industry. Skilled craftsmen and technicians are as important
as lawyers, politicians, academics or journalists; but the rewards
have gone to the elite who have the power of the word over the skill
of the craftsmen.
Second, Jews have been at the forefront of promoting multiculturalism,
diversity, globalism, etc., while trying to block nationalism of
others, while embracing Zionism themselves. This faction of Jews have
maintained their presence in academics, the media and politics and are
the primary stumbling block to other ethnic groups trying to form
their own cohesive nationhood based on their genetic similarity, just
like the Jews have done in Israel. My objection to Jewish influence
in America therefore is strictly political and aimed at the Jewish
Left, not the empirical Jewish right, and there are many of them who
reject multiculturalism and genetic assimilation. These Jews I
embrace, those that are on the side of eugenics and human advancement.
And from the East, I also see an emerging nationalism. It may be that
the eugenic program I envision will take place in countries like
Japan, Korea, China, Singapore, India, etc. They may be able to
overcome the individualism and lack of solidarity found in the
Christian West. Christianity may only be the expression of a people
who are creative and intelligent, but lack Nietzsche's concept of
"the will to power" necessary to turn against destructive
sentimentality that prevails in the West. We have much to learn about
what is genetic, and what is cultural. But if Christian morality is
made up of a genetic weakness then a new species of human will have to
come from the East, or from a hybridization of East and West. This
issue will be taken up in detail as we learn more about what
contributes to each civilization's inability to apply eugenics
effectively. But competition between groups for intellectual
superiority will be the driving force of eugenics - and nationalism is
the formula for this friendly competition.
Eugenics at the individual level has been practiced for decades now,
as intelligent people are going to college, understand genetics, and -
on average - select those mates that have high intelligence and are
free of genetic disease. This is assortative mating, and it will
increase as equality of opportunity spreads, genetic testing becomes
readily available, and knowledge of how genes make us what we are
displaces the old notions of an infinitely malleable human nature.
Much of what I write therefore, is an attempt to overthrow the grip
that Marxist academics, religious fundamentalists, political
egalitarians, and the media have over us - denying our genetic
contribution to who we are. On the one hand, the press gives us
numerous stories about genetics, while denying that it has any
significance in who we ultimately become. This web site lays out the
evidence, much of it recent, that shows that nature has a far more
important role than nurture. This is meant to increase the awareness
of individuals who will be having children with regards to the
importance of genes, as well bringing about policy changes that are
realistic goals for society. One indicator will be President Bush's
"No Child Left Behind" program. When the polity finally accepts that
educational attainment is as much genetics as it is money spent, then
we will have turned the corner back to towards a balance between
nature and nurture.
Eugenics at the group level has been active intellectually, and will
follow in practice when enough people take up eugenics at a personal
level to want to form groups for advancing their own group interests.
Of course, eugenics has been practiced by the Jews as a group for over
2000 years, and can serve as a model for other groups to follow. The
recently formed Raelians are another successful group, but their goal
seems to be messianic as much as it is eugenic. Nevertheless, they
are well funded, and well organized, to clone the first humans - an
important tool for eugenics. Other groups will follow as the number
of people interested in eugenics grows, along with the scientific
advancements in genetic engineering and behavioral genetics.
Eugenics at the national level - that is one promoted by the state -
is occurring in many countries from Singapore and China in the east to
Sweden in the West. These programs are primarily monetary incentives,
and often are targeted for increasing the overall number of births to
at least replacement levels - or 2.1 children per couple, on average.
In homogeneous societies, these eugenic programs can be carried out
without the shrill cry of "racism," and can increasingly promote
eugenics. For example, those with low intelligence can be offered
economic incentives to be sterilized. Assuming that a welfare mom
will have four children, and it will cost about $8,000 per year, per
child, to try and educate the children as well as keep them out of
prison - it would be cost effective for the state to pay close to
$400,000 for voluntary sterilization. Likewise, tax incentives can be
given to the most economically successful people who have children.
The success of such a eugenics program is dependent on how
aggressively it is pursued - meaning that competition between nations
will accelerate the need for state sponsored eugenics programs in
order to compete. Nations with a higher average intelligence, will be
more competitive economically and more successful at promoting
democracy - including direct democracy and the abolition of managerial
state. As will be shown in the Middle East, democracies cannot be
sustained without a high level of intelligence. So by increasing
intelligence, it is my firm belief based on the empirical evidence,
that humans can go beyond representative democracy and the welfare
state to where violence, warfare, and class divisions can be greatly
reduced. It may not be utopia, but it seems fairly universal that it
is a world that most people are striving for - a world without class
or racial conflict.
.
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: EUGENICS Would Create More Atheists |
26 Nov 2004 11:12:45 PM |
|
|
In our last episode <d24e2044.0411261722.62021cf1@posting.google.com>,
Paleo-Conservative lept out of the bushes shouting:
The following is from http://www.neoeugenics.com/
Idiot.
<plonk>
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Being surprised at the fact that the universe
is fine tuned for life is akin to a puddle being
surprised at how well it fits its hole"
-- Douglas Adams
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paleo-Conservative" |
|
| Title: Re: EUGENICS Would Create More Atheists |
27 Nov 2004 05:54:54 PM |
|
|
From http://www.neoeugenics.com/
I.) Isn't human genetics and biology too complicated to practice
eugenics safely ?
1) The Jews practiced eugenics, increasing their IQ by 15 points over
the population average. They knew nothing about genetics, but their
cultural system made sure the most intellectual and the most
intelligent had more opportunities to reproduce.[MacDonald, 1994]
2) We have been doing selective breeding on animals since we started
domesticating them. People have been selecting for desired traits for
centuries without knowing anything about the complexities of genetics,
and it worked. Many different breeds with specific personality traits
have been created. The problem here is that they did it via
inbreeding, which led to an increase in the occurrence of genetic
diseases -- but more recently animal breeding groups have decided to
select without using the inbreeding method (i.e. same process of human
eugenics, phenotype selection). The result is that it works, if only
less efficiently than it did with in-breeding selection (that is,
there is a bit more variation within a breed created this way for the
trait for which it is notable -- which is not a problem since a decent
degree of variation is something we want to keep). Another example is
the enhanced longevity of a fruit fly strain created by articial
selection. Using phenotype selection for late fertility, in a
laboratory at the University of California, Irvine, evolutionary
biologist Michael Rose has bred fruit flies that live for 70 to 80
days, nearly twice that of the average fruit fly. Rose first collected
eggs laid by middle-aged fruit flies, and let them hatch in isolation.
The progeny were then transferred to a communal plexiglass cage to
eat, grow and breed under conditions ideal for mating. When they
reached advanced ages, the eggs laid by older females and fertilized
by older males were again collected and the process was repeated all
over again. After 15 generations, the new fruit fly had nearly twice
the life span of the average fruit fly. Since these early experiments,
even better results have been attained by selecting for other
characteristics, such as ability to resist starvation.
3) Some ancient civilizations used negative eugenics. Sparta, one of
those who practiced eugenics in selection of physical strength and
health, has been one of the most militarily powerful city-states of
ancient times. And, despite the fact that these civilizations have
been practicing eugenics, nothing negative or destructive happened to
them because of that -- quite the opposite.
4) Whether our eugenic program will work or not will itself be part of
natural selection. In other words, if human genetics really is so
complicated that eugenic programs won't work, then our project will be
"eliminated" in some way or another, and natural selection will have
accomplished its work, favoring the evolutionary laisser-faireists,
culturally and perhaps even genetically. Group selection at work.
That selection can be achieved by simply selecting according to the
phenotypical desired trait is not questioned by anybody as far as I
know, especially when it is a multifactorial, polygenic trait -- such
as intelligence.
True, recessive single-gene diseases that "keep hiding in everybody's
genotype" cannot truly be once-and-for-all eliminated from the gene
pool, but their incidence CAN be reduced within our gene pool.
According to John Armstrong, of the "Canine Diversity Project" -- an
animal breeding project --: "Though it is not practical to eliminate
all deleterious mutation, the incidence of affected individuals may be
significantly reduced through a combination of intelligent breeding
practice and the development of DNA tests."
And it makes sense to anyone with at least the most basic knowledge of
population genetics. I don't see why this wouldn't apply to humans,
and I would even less see why multifactorial traits could not be
selected for in the same way.
II.) Doesn't this remind you of Nazism ? of Brave New World ?
What these questions remind me of is Pavlov.
Prometheism is Prometheism, and has no link with, ideological or
otherwise -- nor is it inspired from -- anything else, be it Nazis,
Brave New World, or sects.
Nazism did support its own kind of eugenics -- a racial, coercive,
nation-wide, negative(i.e. it focused on removing undesired traits)
eugenics. But the goals and methods of Promethean eugenics differ. We
will not use forced sterilization or anything like that, we do not
care for "racial purity" and blue eyes, and we want to enhance
intellect -- something the Nazis didn't care about. In fact, Hitler
banned IQ testing because he thought it was a Jewish invention. As for
Nazi atrocities, most of them (Jewish persecution, for example) had
nothing to do with eugenics. In fact, a sound eugenic system would
tend to SUPPORT Jews and their high IQ...
Brave New World is a world centered on artificial pleasures and an
arbitrary creations of different classes -- from Epsilons to Alphas.
First of all, we don't want to create a Utopia in any way, we only
want to enhance ourselves as much as we can, with no pre-conceived
future world in mind. Our goal is relative and gradual, not absolute.
As for the classes, we don't believe in voluntarily creating dumb
people to become our slaves. We want to gradually raise and equalize
(upward) intelligence and creativity, so Prometheans will consists
only of "Alphas", and individually free Alphas. Individual freedom is
another concept that Prometheism advocates, while the Brave New World
of Huxley tries to eliminate it.
III.) Don't IQ tests fail to distinguish between the effects of
genetics and environment ? How can you know, then, if there is higher
genetic IQ in an individual than in another ?
Since IQ is not merely genetic, it is true that a part of your IQ
reflects purely environmental influences. However, this is a moot
point.
First, statistics will make sure that "injustices" -- i.e. scores in
which one is higher than another one because of environmental effects
-- are averaged out. Sure, at the individual level you will have some
cases where one should have been considered with higher reproductive
value because his high score is more substantially due to genetics
than another one, but as a group this will tend to average out.
Second, as generations pass, the genes passed on will go through
several different environments as they go through several different
bodies, and those that are passed on because they happened to be
favored by the environment, will tend to be "cleansed". In other
words, with generations the effects of environment will be
statistically averaged out, just like in one generation the effect of
the environment tends to be averaged out.
Third, environment generally goes in the direction of "genetic IQ".
That is, high IQ people will surround themselves with a more
intellectually nourishing environment. This is why there is broad
heritability: it is the heritability that comes from the interaction
of genetics with environment as in a kind of feedback. And the broad
heritability of 'g' is mostly estimated at around .80 to as high as
the test-retest correlation around .93 ! In other words, most of what
the 'g'-loaded IQ scores reflect is essentially genetic ability AND
the better environment that results from better genetics. At best you
could attribute .10 of the variation to totally environmental factors
such as pre-natal environment.
When comparing two individuals, this slight uncertainty is indeed a
problem. But when acting on an entire group, this is far from being a
problem: it will at worst only slightly reduce the efficiency of
eugenics.
IV.) By what right do you decide that less intelligent people, or
people with "genetic defects" are somehow less valuable ?
We do not decide that they are less valuable, we decide that we want
their traits to decrease in frequency from our Promethean gene pool.
We have an objective -- to increase intellect and creativity -- and
this is going to be achieved by reducing the occurrence of undesired
traits and increasing the occurrence of the desired traits. We do not
make value judgments about the individuals in question, we only want
some of their traits to either be reduced or increased for the benefit
of future generations.
As for the case of "genetic defects"(hereditary diseases), it is
obviously something we want to see less often in the future
generations, and therefore it is a trait we select against -- not
because we believe that the individuals who possess them are
"worthless", but because they suffer from them and we do not want to
pass on this suffering.
I think we have a right, as a group, to decide which traits we want to
see enhanced and which traits we want to see removed from our future
gene pool. If we were imposing this on others, then I would understand
you ethical concerns. But we are not: we are voluntarily choosing
this, as willing members of Prometheism.
V.) Isn't intelligence or IQ a learned ability ?
No. Its basis is genetic. Environment can affect it, but even then it
is mostly nutrition and things such as serious sensory deprivation
that can affect it. Every experiment that has attempted to raise IQ
(mostly on children) by practice and learning gave either one of two
results: the gains were lost after a few years or when reaching
mid-adolescence, or the gains were only on one type of test and did
not transfer to the common component of IQ tests ('g') or other tests.
In other words, the individuals had been "taught to the test", but
their intelligence had not increased.
Also, Professor Plomin has found the first gene, located on chromosome
six, that influences intelligence.
VI.) Weren't these things proven to be a complete failure ?
No. On the contrary, "these things" were proven to be a complete
success.
See answer to question 1.
VII.) Isn't eugenics unethical ?
It depends on how it is applied. Not practicing eugenics is unethical.
If you are talking about state-imposed coercive eugenics, then maybe.
It becomes a never-ending debate on individual versus collective
rights, and happiness of the masses versus happiness of future
generations.
If you are talking about what Prometheism supports -- voluntary
eugenics applied to a private consenting group -- then no it isn't,
and I don't see why it would be.
VIII.) In a high-IQ society, who will do the dishes, flip hamburgers ?
Who will be the janitor ?
1) The occupational level is relative to the population's mean. So in
a high-IQ society, one can suppose that it is still the left part of
the bell curve that will have the lower-skill jobs.
2) Having a high IQ doesn't make you incapable of enjoying simple
things, just like having a low IQ doesn't make you love washing
dishes.
3) As the IQ of the population rises, the need for simpler jobs will
diminish as the rise in technologically-oriented professions replaces
these by automated processes. The intellectual/technological solution
to problems will increasingly be chosen instead of the physical
solution -- where possible. Besides, the economy leads us in this
direction with "automatization" and "digitalization", which suits the
right part of the bell curve's interests: it is more efficient. So
this is actually a welcome development for a society with a rising IQ,
a society with an intellect that progresses along with its culture and
technology.
4) As for low-skill jobs, there will always be students who need
them...
5) The economy will adapt to anything: even if it happens that
low-skill jobs are in higher demand, then people who do such jobs will
be better paid...
IX.) What if this FAQ didn't answer my question ?
If you have more questions, specifically about eugenics, you can view
Marian Van Court's Q & A on eugenics, not affiliated with the Church
of Prometheus, at http://www.eugenics.net/papers/Q&a.html. And while
you're at it, be sure to visit the Future Generations website at
http://www.eugenics.net.
If that still doesn't answer your question, you can join our
discussion group, http://groups.yahoo.com/group/prometheism-pgroup and
ask.
-----------
References
- MacDonald, K.B. (1994). "A People That Shall Dwell Alone: Judaism as
a Group Evolutionary Strategy". Westport, CT: Praeger.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hypatia Kosh" |
|
| Title: Re: EUGENICS Would Create More Atheists |
27 Nov 2004 11:06:50 PM |
|
|
(Paleo-Conservative) wrote in message news:<d24e2044.0411271554.6e5f6eb6@posting.google.com>...
3) Some ancient civilizations used negative eugenics. Sparta, one of
those who practiced eugenics in selection of physical strength and
health, has been one of the most militarily powerful city-states of
ancient times. And, despite the fact that these civilizations have
been practicing eugenics, nothing negative or destructive happened to
them because of that -- quite the opposite.
You know, I think a comment on this would be gilding the lily, or the
turd, as it were.
-Hypatia
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paleo-Conservative" |
|
| Title: Re: EUGENICS Would Create More Atheists |
28 Nov 2004 01:03:43 PM |
|
|
You know, I think a comment on this would be gilding the lily, or the
turd, as it were.
What do you mean?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Meteorite Debris" |
|
| Title: Re: EUGENICS Would Create More Atheists |
26 Nov 2004 07:54:04 PM |
|
|
On 26 Nov 2004 17:22:21 -0800 the ET form known as Paleo-
Conservative<paleoconservative21@yahoo.com> sent a radio signal across
the vast expanse of deep space -._.--._.--._.--._.--._.--._.
The following is from http://www.neoeugenics.com/
Playing God is indeed playing with fire. But that is what we mortals
have done since Prometheus, the patron saint of dangerous discovery.
We play with fire and take the consequences, because the alternative
is cowardice in the face of the unknown. (Dworkin, 2000)
Humans are very much like our primate ancestors. Unfortunately, with
our larger intelligent brains, we have acquired the ability to foresee
our deaths as soon as we are able to understand life, at a very young
age. With this horror, we have instead of facing life with knowledge
that we have a brief time to live - a time to be made the most of - we
have turned back to our primitive instincts and succumbed to religion,
false beliefs, and submission to dominance by others.
The answer to this dilemma during most of this century, has been to
try and change human culture, assuming it is infinitely malleable,
leading to the agony of communism and the short comings of egalitarian
democracies. And in the rest of the world, despotism reigns under
numerous doctrines, with little hope for the people subjected to the
state's propaganda. This web page is dedicated to putting forth the
view that to change the human condition we must change the innate
nature of humans, that is, we must encourage the breeding of people
with a higher intellect, people better able to understand what
motivates them and who can eventually revolt against the subjugation
by the state or the controlling elite.
An unlikely scenario. A top down solution to problem of
authoritarianism. Imagine a group that sets itself up as an authority
to determine how all humanity can be improved and decides that what is
needed is less subjugation to authority, the very quality that made
this utopian project possible. This is the same skewed perspective
that leads to the logic of "destroying a village in order to save it".
Eugenics is crap. Diversity of characteristics is the real gold.
Eugenics leads to a narrowing of diversity and builds and locks in
vulnerability in the face of changing circumstances. Diversity is like
a savings bank account - good for a rainy day when some of it may have
to be spent to survive. At other times both gene diversity and savings
should be increased. Before homo sapiens other earlier hominids had
moved out of Africa but became extinct. Africa continued to be the
breeding pot for humans having the most gene diversity and there homo
sapiens evolved before spreading to other continents. Today most human
gene diversity is still found in Africa. If the balloon ever went up
on the human race it is still Africa that would provide the best
chance of human survival by withdrawing on the gene diversity savings
account. I also don't accept that intelligence the one best quality
upon which salvation rests.
As an atheist I know that the Book of Genesis is of no scientific or
historical value. But there is something I can get out of it. That is
an almighty god tried to make a world in his imagine and stuffed it
up. What chance anyone else if even that almighty being couldn't pull
it off?
The rest of your article declines into predictable antiemetism.
--
epicurus1*at*optusnet*dot*com*dot*au
apatriot #1, atheist #1417,
Chief EAC prophet
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~pk1956/
Apatriotism Yahoo Group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/apatriotism
Sunday: A day given over by Americans to wishing that they themselves
were dead and in Heaven, and that their neighbors were dead and in
Hell.
-Mencken
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
