Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
 All Forums
 Our Skeptic Forums
 General Skepticism
 NEO-Eugenics
 New Topic  Topic Locked
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 2

Ubiquitous Consciousness
New Member

1 Post

Posted - 08/12/2004 :  01:14:35  Show Profile Send Ubiquitous Consciousness a Private Message
[Moved to the General Skepticism folder - Dave W.]
[Deleted as Spam - Dave W.]

filthy
SFN Die Hard

USA
14408 Posts

Posted - 08/12/2004 :  02:49:34   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send filthy a Private Message
Greetings Ubiquitous Consciousness and welcome to SFN!

Well, that was a long one. I'm going to have to read it over again to get a little more than the gist of it -- it's early and I'm not at my most alert.

I seem to recall that the late Adolph Hitler harbored similiar ideas and even acted on them. They didn't work. They won't work now simply due to plain, old human cantankerousness. I'm not sure about the Jewish connection. I'll have to look it up.

Again, welcome!


"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)

"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres


"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude

Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,

and Crypto-Communist!

Go to Top of Page

HistryKnows
New Member

1 Post

Posted - 08/12/2004 :  04:59:19   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send HistryKnows a Private Message
Three things come to mind:
1) Hitler, which someone has mentioned
2) H.G.Wells "Time Machine". It's been quiet a few years, but weren't the cloud dwellers the inteligent ones who enslaved the not so intelligent.
3) Just another "technology" that will be used and implimented before all the bad effects are known. There are a lot of good ideas that we, as humans, have proven ourslves too irresponsible for. Any idea, no matter ho wonderful it sounds, will be perverted and used to raise one segment of society over another segment of society.
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26004 Posts

Posted - 08/12/2004 :  10:28:09   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message
Ubiquitous Consciousness, I've just gotta ask why you posted Nuenke's conspiratorial and racist ramblings here? Is it your desire to see the article praised or vivisectioned?

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

@tomic
Administrator

USA
4607 Posts

Posted - 08/12/2004 :  10:35:47   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit @tomic's Homepage Send @tomic a Private Message
Should this be in Social Issues? We don't have a hate mongering forum.

@

Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!

Sportsbettingacumen.com: The science of sports betting
Go to Top of Page

Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie

USA
4826 Posts

Posted - 08/12/2004 :  10:49:35   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Valiant Dancer's Homepage Send Valiant Dancer a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by @tomic

Should this be in Social Issues? We don't have a hate mongering forum.

@



How about we leave it right here where it can die of neglect?

I have some serious problems with the premises for this piece.

Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils

Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion
Go to Top of Page

BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard

3192 Posts

Posted - 08/12/2004 :  11:37:49   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send BigPapaSmurf a Private Message
Well from your post we must make assumptions, due to the fact that no opinions were given.

1) You(UC)are the author of the posted material and are merely posting this unfounded racist drivel to expand your audience.

2) You were disgusted by the web-site you found and posted it here to get other similar reactions.

3) You agree with the information and are posting it to expand its audience.

4) Personally I think you are just showing what lengths this particular person will go to concerning anti-semitism. I say so because you pointed out this quote.

quote:
"Any of the following articles that I have written are free for redistribution or republication. This includes editing, shortening, or elaborating on articles as desired to accomplish eugenic goals. Nothing else matters but the future."


But I have no way of really knowing and must therefor make assumptions. As a devoted skeptic I loathe making assumptions.

If you are going to post things that are not based in fact, please add your own opinion of the subject, why you thought it relevant, why is it incorrect/correct, etc.

"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History

"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini
Go to Top of Page

furshur
SFN Regular

USA
1536 Posts

Posted - 08/12/2004 :  11:39:44   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send furshur a Private Message
After reading that post I feel like I need to take a shower for some reason.




If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know.
Go to Top of Page

Dude
SFN Die Hard

USA
6891 Posts

Posted - 08/12/2004 :  11:40:05   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Dude a Private Message
quote:
I have some serious problems with the premises for this piece.


Agree.

Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson

"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin

Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth
Go to Top of Page

@tomic
Administrator

USA
4607 Posts

Posted - 08/12/2004 :  12:00:07   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit @tomic's Homepage Send @tomic a Private Message
BigPapaSmurf does make some excellent points. UC may have just forgotten to show the problems with this article quotation. Regardless of an author claiming to alow something to be republished I don't think it's a good idea for so many reasons. And posting without comment leaves way too much in the air as to the poster's intentions.

I'd like to know what UC has in mind.

@

Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!

Sportsbettingacumen.com: The science of sports betting
Go to Top of Page

Ricky
SFN Die Hard

USA
4907 Posts

Posted - 08/12/2004 :  12:34:56   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Send Ricky an AOL message Send Ricky a Private Message
While I of course completely disagree with the writing, I did find one quote that I liked:

quote:
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.


Technically, we were terrorists as well.

As for the eugenics, why don't we just leave natural selection natural? We have yet to reach any kind of barrier for human intellect. We have yet to reach any kind of barrier for human strength. Why do you think one exists? Is this not an assumption?

Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov
Go to Top of Page

tomk80
SFN Regular

Netherlands
1278 Posts

Posted - 08/12/2004 :  15:30:54   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit tomk80's Homepage Send tomk80 a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Ubiquitous Consciousness
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.



Ignoring the rest of the post for a moment, I'm always wondering how someone like the author of the article would define intellect. Would this be a good philosophical intellect, a good possibility to abstract thinking, a good emotional intellect. Which traits are important, which can be neglected. Do we use some sort of cut-off point?

It is my opinion that someone writing something like the above has a negligible understanding of the concept of intelligence and the problems and complexity concerning it. This way, he naturally disqualifies himself from participating in his own little 'breeding experiment'. I mean, we can't have someone in it who doesn't even understand the complexity of the basis of his own worldview, right?

Tom

`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll-
Go to Top of Page

N C More
Skeptic Friend

53 Posts

Posted - 08/12/2004 :  16:02:18   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send N C More a Private Message
Basically, this is a disturbing article and TomK80 has zeroed in on one very dicey element...how does one define intelligence (let alone the issue of intelligence being a strictly a genetic trait)? I mean, are we just talking IQ here or something more? If it's only an IQ score we're interested in then let me point out that Ted Kazenski, aka "The Unibomber", had a near genius IQ. He was a brilliant mathematician and could read and write in several languages...he was also a homicidal schizophrenic!

The question of eugenics runs smack dab into realm of values and morality.

"An open mind is like an open window...without a good screen you'll get some really weird bugs!"
Go to Top of Page

ktesibios
SFN Regular

USA
505 Posts

Posted - 08/12/2004 :  16:32:18   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send ktesibios a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by N C More

Basically, this is a disturbing article and TomK80 has zeroed in on one very dicey element...how does one define intelligence (let alone the issue of intelligence being a strictly a genetic trait)? I mean, are we just talking IQ here or something more?


Well, he seems to think that the unit of intelligence is money:

quote:
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.


Wonderful. Let's ensure a bountiful supply of moneybagged sheepwits for all time to come while simultaneously making sure we'll never be surprised by any more poor kids who grow up to accomplish something important.

I wonder if the memory of the results of the last time this kind of thinking became policy is still strong enough to prevent it happening again or if the it-takes-two-generations-to-forget-things-learned-the-hard-way rule has kicked in.





"The Republican agenda is to turn the United States into a third-world shithole." -P.Z.Myers
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26004 Posts

Posted - 08/12/2004 :  16:45:56   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message
@tomic wrote:
quote:
Should this be in Social Issues?
[Shrug] When I moved it out of General Discussion, I could see it going into Social Issues, or into Politics, or Conspiracy Theories, or Health, or Pseudoscience. Since it's such a mish-mash, I figured General Skepticism was the best place. And really, it all depends on Ubiquitous Consciousness' unstated intentions for posting this article in the first place.

Or, perhaps we just have a coberst wanna-be:Doesn't have quite the same M.O., but it's close. All of the above appear to have been drive-by postings. I doubt that Ubiquitous Consciousness will be back.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Wulfstan
New Member

USA
42 Posts

Posted - 08/13/2004 :  04:53:26   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Wulfstan a Private Message
Though Ubiquitous is making the attached website ubiquitous by posting it all over, the subject of eugenics is one I've encountered much in the last year or so. I will get to some of his (or whoever the author is)points in a second.

I first became familiar with the eugenics popular day when arguing with a pro-life, right-winger who said Planned Parenthood is evil and engages in eugenics (by being situated in low-income neighborhoods)and its founder, Margaret Sanger, was a eugenicist like Hitler, anti-semitic, blah, blah, blah. Planned Parenthood set up a page arguing these points about itself and Margaret Sanger that helps put that in perspective.

Read here: Planned Parenthood Margaret Sanger eugenics

The short of it is this:
quote:
In 1927, the eugenics movement reached the height of its popularity when the U.S. Supreme Court, in Buck v. Bell, held that it was constitutional to involuntarily sterilize the developmentally disabled, the insane, or the uncontrollably epileptic. Oliver Wendell Holmes, supported by Louis Brandeis and six other justices, wrote the opinion.

Although Sanger uniformly repudiated the racist exploitation of eugenics principles, she agreed with the "progressives" of her day who favored

incentives for the voluntary hospitalization and/or sterilization of people with untreatable, disabling, hereditary conditions
the adoption and enforcement of stringent regulations to prevent the immigration of the diseased and "feebleminded" into the U.S.
placing so-called illiterates, paupers, unemployables, criminals, prostitutes, and dope-fiends on farms and open spaces as long as necessary for the strengthening and development of moral conduct
Planned Parenthood Federation of America finds these views objectionable and outmoded. Nevertheless, anti-family planning activists continue to attack Sanger, who has been dead for over 30 years, because she is an easier target than the unassailable reputation of PPFA and the contemporary family planning movement. However, attempts to discredit the family planning movement because its early 20th-century founder was not a perfect model of early 21st-century values is like disavowing the Declaration of Independence because its author, Thomas Jefferson, bought and sold slaves.


A lot of people don't know the extent of the United State's involvement in eugenics or how recent eugenic practices were still in place. Has anyone seen the movie, "Rabbit Proof Fence" with Kenneth Branaugh? The British had a program that went into the late 1960's where they were taking young aboriginal girls in Western Australia, bringing them to schools and marrying them off to white men; it was figured that within three generations their aboriginal traits, dark skin, etc, would be "bred out" of them. Two of the young girls escaped the school, using the miles-long fence to outwit the trackers and find their way home.

Someone at Wikepedia has collected information that mirrors some of PP's information. See here Wikepedia-Eugenics:

quote:
The nation that had the second largest Eugenics movement was the United States. Beginning with Connecticut in 1896, many states enacted marriage laws with eugenic criteria, prohibiting anyone who was "epileptic, imbecile or feeble-minded" from marrying, Charles B. Davenport, a prominent American biologist, assumed the role of director of a biological research station based in Cold Spring Harbour. Here he began experimenting with evolution of plants and animals. That same year, Davenport received funds from the Carnegie Institution to found the Station of Experimental Evolution. 1910 heralded the Eugenics Record Office, Davenport and Harry H. Laughlin began to promote eugenics. In years to come the ERO collected a mass of family pedigrees, which concluded that those that were unfit were from economically and socially poor backgrounds. Eugenicists such as Davenport, the psychologist Henry H. Goddard, and the conservationist Madison Grant (all well respected in their time) began to lobby for various solutions to the problem of the "unfit" (Davenport favored immigration restriction and sterilization as primary methods, Goddard favored segregation in his The Kallikak Family, Grant favored all of the above and more -- even entertaining the idea of extermination). Though we now see the methodology and research methods as being highly flawed, in their time they were seen as legitimate scientific reseach, though they did have their scientific detractors (notably Thomas Hunt Morgan).

In 1924, the Immigration Restriction Act was passed, with eugenists for the first time playing a central role in the Congressional debate, as expert advisors on the threat of "inferior stock" from Eastern and Southern Europe. This reduced the number of immigrants from abroad to fifteen percent of that of previous years, to control the proportion of "unfit" individuals entering the country. Thus, strengthening the existing laws of no race mixing to try and maintain the gene pool. Eugenic considerations also lay behind the adoption of incest laws in much of the USA.


History aside, modern eugenics proponents feel that since we've outwitted nature and natural selection and now have the capability to fool around with genes, that we should do so in order to prevent diseases, birth defects, etc. That is one debate.

This Matt Nuenke author (is it Ubiquitous?), is focusing on intellect not merely biological fitness, which is definitely dicey. By creating more intelligent people they will be smart to rise up agaisnt the state. I don't think that would work, because the nature of mankind is that intelligence doesn't prevent those nasty traits of power, greed, domination, jealousy, hate, et al.

quote:
Matt Nuenke says:
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.

What does intellect have to do with the "innate nature of humans?" Have you put 20 intelligent people in a room together? There will always be those who seek to dominate. Many species are like this. By raising the bar on intelligence, to me, wouldn't change the overall effect to achieve this, as he says:

quote:
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.


This would be nice if intelligence actually had some eff
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 2 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Next Page
 New Topic  Topic Locked
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.52 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000