America has turned population control on it's head. the more intelligent and ambitious are aborting their offspring only to have them replaced by ignorant and lazy welfare rats and illegals multiplying faster than we can pay for their handouts.
Posted on 04/01/2008 4:19:57 PM PDT by wagglebee
Very true!
Pro-Life Ping
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
Global Warming is a front for the Eugenicists.
...a typical misunderstanding of natural selection. "Fitter" doesn't imply superiority in ways other than being more fit to survive and reproduce the genes.
From what we see in America, some of the "most fit" to pass on their genes are those who don't feel a sense of responsibility, procreating beyond their means, starting young and out of wedlock, with multiple partners. This often correlates with lower intelligence, so we might find that high intelligence is actually less "fit" in a Darwinian sense.
And so, "eugenics" and "fitness" may actually be at odds, depending on definitions. Without pressures of predation, a disgenic trend may emerge, perfectly naturally. It's important to recognize that the individuals are individuals, humans are humans, regardless of their genetic makeup.
The big picture is becoming clearer, as we connect the dots and see how these very different trends and technologies combine to undermine the dignity of the individual, and especially the protection of the weak, in wholly fresh ways. As I said in my keynote to the National Right to Life Convention earlier in 2006, if you were pro-life in the twentieth century, you need to see yourself as pro-human in the twenty-first.
Why not "pro-person" or "pro-individual" if we care about individuals and not just a humanity as a faceless mass?
How so?
LOL! You're getting colder.
Luckily for the Kennedys, this did not become the prevailing view.
I agree with you (which I'm sure surprises you as much as it does me); however, I think that Francis Galton, Leonard Darwin and certainly Margaret Sanger saw it differently.
In a strict Darwinian sense, physical strength is arguably far more important than intelligence; however, this is no longer true in the today's world and this was the angle that the eugenicists pursued.
America has turned population control on it's head. the more intelligent and ambitious are aborting their offspring only to have them replaced by ignorant and lazy welfare rats and illegals multiplying faster than we can pay for their handouts.
This is how I see it at least.
A small number of very intelligent individuals commanding unlimited hordes of fierce, loyal, primitive, idiots is a formidable force.
Few Americans realize that many of the genes in their own bodies have already been patented. This means not simply that certain companies hold patents on tests for genetic diseases, but that your own doctor is not able to examine those genes without paying a royalty and getting permission.
Would someone kindly explain?
You made some excellent points there about the Darwinian definition of "fitness."
I understand what you're saying, too, about "pro-person" or "pro-individual." Those would be good terms in most contexts, but I think the author in this case was trying to emphasize "human" meaning "having species intactness" as opposed to "part human, part animal and part machine" or "interpecies embryo."
We strongly believe in the sanctity of the human "person" or "individual," but -- in a slightly different sense --- we do also care about the integrity of the human species per se.
These two USSC cases, plus some subsequent rulings, make it possible for a researcher to "discover" a gene, meaning do original research on how it functions, and use this as a basis for patenting it. This is all recent caselaw, still developing. For a good overview. see The Impact of Human Gene Patents on Innovation and Access: A Survey of Human Gene Patent Litigation.
Biggest issue of the 21st century, and none of the candidates --- Clinton Obama, or McCain ---have spoken about it or given the least indication that they know one damn thing about it. Except we can probably assume they're all for it, since they're all in favor of ESSR.
I'm not so sure that Margaret Sanger saw it differently...she was deathly afraid of the "undesirables" reproducing at a faster rate than the "desirables"...she definitely saw the "danger" of "survival of the fittest" meaning "most likely to reproduce." That's why she pushed so hard for birth control.
I once spent some long hours going through roll after roll of microfilm, and printed the first in a series of my findings, before the publisher squashed it. The excerpts were too inflamatory.
Sanger was a very strong proponent of negative eugenics.
There's a much deeper discussion we could have...about questions like, "What does it mean to be 'human'?" and also questions about natural law. And "is it bad to save a life through genetic engineering, if it requires allowing patents to give incentive to development of life-saving technologies?" etc.
Unfortunately, the FR censorship-squad would probably come out of the woodwork if we tried anything beyond knee-jerking and sloganeering. :-(
These issues are far from simple.
So is "unlimited hordes of fierce, loyal, primitive, idiots ignoring the intelligent."
Not so much. If they don’t have the intelligence to improve weapons and tactics, and other non warfare techs related to economy and agriculture, they are easy pickins to a nation that does have the intelligent ones doing these things for them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
