Eugenics: what do you think?

[ygolo]

I get you now. It's almost as if sickle cell anemia is one end of an extreme. Unfortunately, sickle cell is the negative end of the spectrum.

Obviously, genetic manipulation (or whatever the official name for it is) is extremely complicated. A lot of time needs to be invested into learning the subject. Its too big of a thing to speculate on and make a bold move.

[MENTION=825]ygolo[/MENTION]

I'm dead serious. There is not one competitive advantage that they have. If there was, the mentally handicapped would be reproducing.

As [MENTION=20829]Hard[/MENTION] and I have been explaining, it is very rare and very inefficient for a particular externally visible trait and only that trait to be controlled by a gene.

Autism is often considered a mental handicap, for instance. But we now conceive of it as being on a spectrum of development issues, and is affected not only by genetics (like Fragile X), but by the immune process of mothers, and environmental factors. It also seems to be the case that people on the higher end of the Autism spectrum are able to accomplish certain things (sometimes great music, sometimes photographic memory, sometime exceptional math ability,...) Sorting all of that out is not going to be easy, if not impossible.

It could well be that the very same genetics that leads to mental retardation in some, placed in a different context (environment, immune system, etc), could lead instead to genius.

 

[Beorn]

Please give me one genetic advantage that the mentally handicapped have over the non-mentally handicapped.

They aren't capable of building nuclear bombs.

 

[á´…eparted]

As [MENTION=20829]Hard[/MENTION] and I have been explaining, it is very rare and very inefficient for a particular externally visible trait and only that trait to be controlled by a gene.

Autism is often considered a mental handicap, for instance. But we now conceive of it as being on a spectrum of development issues, and is affected not only by genetics (like Fragile X), but by the immune process of mothers, and environmental factors. It also seems to be the case that people on the higher end of the Autism spectrum are able to accomplish certain things (sometimes great music, sometimes photographic memory, sometime exceptional math ability,...) Sorting all of that out is not going to be easy, if not impossible.

It could well be that the very same genetics that leads to mental retardation in some, placed in a different context (environment, immune system, etc), could lead instead to genius.

Also, wonderful example of someone with Autism: Temple Grandin.

Simply put [MENTION=17452]collierm48[/MENTION], this is not as cut and dry as you or anyone else wants it to be.

 

[TheCheeseBurgerKing]

As [MENTION=20829]Hard[/MENTION] and I have been explaining, it is very rare and very inefficient for a particular externally visible trait and only that trait to be controlled by a gene.

Well if you read my post that you just quoted you'd see that I just addressed that. Lol.

It also seems to be the case that people on the higher end of the Autism spectrum are able to accomplish certain things (sometimes great music, sometimes photographic memory, sometime exceptional math ability,...) Sorting all of that out is not going to be easy, if not impossible.

Imagine that your peirs have the same expectations for you as a 4 year old. You fall in love with the piano. I'll bet you'd be f*##ing Mozart by the time you were 10. They have no social lives, no expectations, and they are taken care of like little children. Of course they can be good at one thing. Everyone else could do the same thing.

 

[Mole]

We are ends not means.

So asking if a person is useful is an offence.

And Eugenics tells us who of us is useful and who is not.

However we do have the advantage of a long history of Eugenics in the USA and Germany, and we have discovered Eugenics is a pseudo science that has taken us as close to absolute evil as we have ever gone.

So rationalising Eugenics is a sign of moral immaturity at best, and moral decay at worst.

 

[TheCheeseBurgerKing]

Also, wonderful example of someone with Autism: Temple Grandin.

Simply put [MENTION=17452]collierm48[/MENTION], this is not as cut and dry as you or anyone else wants it to be.

Read that last post I just put up. It makes sense. Temple Grandin proves my point. The genius of some Autistic people is no mystery. They simply focus on less things.

Oh and for the record, if you post something long and it isn't concise, I'm probably gonna skim it.

 

[ygolo]

Yeah? Well if you read my post that you just quoted you'd see that I just addressed that. Christ.

You didn't. It is not just a matter of not having the technology yet. It is matter of principally not having those types genes left. Natural selection does a good job in these respects already.

Imagine that your peirs have the same expectations for you as a 4 year old. You fall in love with the piano. I'll bet you'd be f*##ing Mozart by the time you were 10. They have no social lives, no expectations, and they are taken care of like little children. Of course they can be good at one thing. Everyone else could do the same thing.

Even if this were the reason, that still doesn't take away from the fact that they became geniuses. Temple Gardin is an example [MENTION=20829]Hard[/MENTION] mentioned.

Beyond that, I think the tendency towards repetition and systemizing things is a bigger factor than low expectations in other things. Most people just let other people be.

In addition, I don't think it is ONLY the amount of practice that leads them to be good. The genetics behind autism show some correlation to those who have parents who work in science, technology, music, and math...places where spotting patterns that others don't see is the main skill needed.

 

[prplchknz]

the ignorance of the people on this forum never cease to amaze me. one day you will see, of course you'll be dead (no i'm not killing anyone) and you will see you are wrong about people that what makes a person normal you have no clue. you are just afraid and maybe you should be you might piss the wrong people off.

 

[Kullervo]

As [MENTION=20829]Hard[/MENTION] and I have been explaining, it is very rare and very inefficient for a particular externally visible trait and only that trait to be controlled by a gene.

That has no bearing on whether directed eugenics is desirable or not, only on how easy it is to achieve without going to my method. I actually alluded to this earlier in the thread.

I do not buy your argument about effective population. This is because I find it hard to understand how people with serious, heritable disabilities (a subset of the entire population who have a disability) create so much of the diversity within humanity that eliminating them from the gene pool would be a disaster. This is not very intuitive. You have never linked the figures you laid out in your first post exclusively to the aforementioned people in any way, and neither have your buddies. Expecting me to understand something that does not follow simply because you posted it isn't a sign of intelligence.

Autism is often considered a mental handicap, for instance. But we now conceive of it as being on a spectrum of development issues, and is affected not only by genetics (like Fragile X), but by the immune process of mothers, and environmental factors. It also seems to be the case that people on the higher end of the Autism spectrum are able to accomplish certain things (sometimes great music, sometimes photographic memory, sometime exceptional math ability,...) Sorting all of that out is not going to be easy, if not impossible.

But that is not because they are higher functioning autists, is it?

This thread is indeed going nowhere.

It could well be that the very same genetics that leads to mental retardation in some, placed in a different context (environment, immune system, etc), could lead instead to genius.

"Could be". Everything you have posted in this thread summed up in two words.

 

[á´…eparted]

That has no bearing on whether directed eugenics is desirable or not, only on how easy it is to achieve without going to my method. I actually alluded to this earlier in the thread.

I do not buy your argument about effective population. This is because I find it hard to understand how people with serious, heritable disabilities (a subset of the entire population who have a disability) create so much of the diversity within humanity that eliminating them from the gene pool would be a disaster. This is not very intuitive. You have never linked the figures you laid out in your first post exclusively to the aforementioned people in any way, and neither have your buddies. Expecting me to understand something that does not follow simply because you posted it isn't a sign of intelligence.

But that is not because they are higher functioning autists, is it?

This thread is indeed going nowhere.

"Could be". Everything you have posted in this thread summed up in two words.

There is nothing to "buy into". This isn't a matter of "belief" either. You're rejecting how genetics works. Which, is just something that can't be rejected, because it's a fact. To do so goes against science. Which in my opinion is completely unforgivable.

Further, science is not always (in fact it frequently isn't) intuitive.

This thread is indeed going nowhere.

Because you have completely and unequivocally missed the entire point of what I and Ygolo have just been explaining. I can not believe that it has not gotten into you.

 

[Kullervo]

There is nothing to "buy into". This isn't a matter of "belief" either. You're rejecting how genetics works. Which, is just something that can't be rejected, because it's a fact. To do so goes against science. Which in my opinion is completely unforgivable.

This is your last chance. I will spell it out for you:

Nobody has adequately explained how implementing my idea would have adverse effects on human diversity. Don't bitch and moan. You have not explained how human diversity is so dependent on the small group of people I want to stop breeding that directed eugenics cannot be allowed. Understand?

Because you have completely and unequivocally missed the entire point of what I and Ygolo have just been explaining. I can not believe that it has not gotten into you.

See above.

 

[ygolo]

That has no bearing on whether directed eugenics is desirable or not, only on how easy it is to achieve without going to my method. I actually alluded to this earlier in the thread.

It is not a matter of "finding the technology." If you are the type of person who likes to tilt at windmills, perhaps this is your thing. Make your perpetual motion machine. Make 700 million small compared to 30 thousand. Square the circle.

What you are talking about is akin to bombing Detroit to improve the economy, because it is clearly failing economically.

I do not buy your argument about effective population. This is because I find it hard to understand how people with serious, heritable disabilities (a subset of the entire population who have a disability) create so much of the diversity within humanity that eliminating them from the gene pool would be a disaster. This is not very intuitive. You have never linked the figures you laid out in your first post exclusively to the aforementioned people in any way, and neither have your buddies. Expecting me to understand something that does not follow simply because you posted it isn't a sign of intelligence.

It's simple, people who are different represent genetic diversity, especially those who have genes that cause a radical change but still survives. Autism is the current example we are using. But we could go with predispositions to many mental disorders...schitzophrenia, bipolar disorder, psycopathy and so on. The same genes could not (and often do not) lead to the symptoms but instead to (and often does) great insight, entrepreneur drive, and ice cold calm in circumstances that needed. The same genes often cause both.

But that is not because they are higher functioning autists, is it?

No. The same genes can and do cause both. Environmental factors (which we have yet to isolate) are know to play a role in things like Autism. A predisposition is just a predisposition.

This thread is indeed going nowhere.

Where did you expect proposing mass genocide to go?

"Could be". Everything you have posted in this thread summed up in two words.

I think three: "Eugenics defeats itself."

 

[á´…eparted]

This is your last chance. I will spell it out for you:

Nobody has adequately explained how implementing my idea would have adverse effects on human diversity. Don't bitch and moan. You have not explained how human diversity is so dependent on the small group of people I want to stop breeding that directed eugenics cannot be allowed. Understand?

See above.

WE. DID.

I'm fucking done with you.

 

[TheCheeseBurgerKing]

I know that few people will read this post, but there are a lot of good points in here that tie togther the views of a lot of people in the thread. I friendily advise giving it a read.

You didn't.

Yeah, I did.

EDIT:
[MENTION=825]ygolo[/MENTION] Here buddy, look below these words right here!

(Dear ygolo, I went back and edited this so you wouldn't be confused anymore. I posted this originally. Not you. I'm collierm48 and you're ygolo, just incase you forgot. Okay bye bye now!) I get you now. It's almost as if sickle cell anemia is one end of an extreme. Unfortunately, sickle cell is the negative end of the spectrum.

Obviously, genetic manipulation (or whatever the official name for it is) is extremely complicated. A lot of time needs to be invested into learning the subject. Its too big of a thing to speculate on and make a bold move.

Here it is ^. You just don't do well with implications.

Even if this were the reason, that still doesn't take away from the fact that they became geniuses. Temple Gardin is an example @Hard mentioned.

- Sure it does, look at the most successful people who aren't autistic. Bill Gates. Michael Jordan. Shaq is both a superior athlete and has a PHD. All these people have a spouse, kids, money...
It's not as complicated as some of you are making it. A lot of people on this site have the perception that knowledge and education are superior to all other accomplishments.
-I get that. IT IS important for our race as a whole to pursue knowledge because its most helpful to the race as a whole. Success as a race IS better than individual accomplishment.

BUT, the bottome line is: The most successful mentally handicapped people are less capable than the most successful non-handicapped. The comparison that I just made proves that pretty clearly.
If non MH'd people were given the same task as MH'd people and had the same number of responsibilities, they could do it.
No MH'd person could do what Bill Gates or Jay-Z have done in their lives.
The reason for this is simply genetics.

Look.
I understand that this is a sensitive subject. I'm sure I've offended people, that was not my intention.
All people deserve the same love. All I'm doing is using real life examples to prove a point. If you are urked by this, deal with it.


All people aren't created equal. All people aren't given equal opportunity.

 

[Kullervo]

All right, last post for tonight...

What you are talking about is akin to bombing Detroit to improve the economy, because it is clearly failing economically.

Well if you have a better idea let's hear it.

It's simple, people who are different represent genetic diversity, especially those who have genes that cause a radical change but still survives. Autism is the current example we are using. But we could go with predispositions to many mental disorders...schitzophrenia, bipolar disorder, psycopathy and so on. The same genes could not (and often do not) lead to the symptoms but instead to (and often does) great insight, entrepreneur drive, and ice cold calm in circumstances that needed. The same genes often cause both.

The goalpoasts have been shifted a lot here. If you go back to my OP post, and the posts afterward where people asked me to specify what I considered to be a disorder worth denying people a marriage liscence for, you will see that I am not even talking about these disorders. Would you say that the same applies for cystic fibrosis, multiple sclerosis, muscular dystrophy, cerebal palsy...? These are the kind of disorders that I was advocating sterilising people for, and made that very clear earlier.

No. The same genes can and do cause both. Environmental factors (which we have yet to isolate) are know to play a role in things like Autism. A predisposition is just a predisposition.

Again, see above. I don't even disagree with some of what you are saying here.

Where did you expect proposing mass genocide to go?

I was expecting people to suggest their solutions to the problem? Also, it is healthy to have these discussions from time to time.

 

[ygolo]

Yeah, I did.



Here it is ^. You just don't do well with implications.




- Sure it does, look at the most successful people who aren't autistic. Bill Gates. Michael Jordan. Shaq is both a superior athlete and has a PHD. All these people have a spouse, kids, money...
It's not as complicated as some of you are making it. A lot of people on this site have the perception that knowledge and education are superior to all other accomplishments.
-I get that. IT IS important for our race as a whole to pursue knowledge because its most helpful to the race as a whole. Success as a race IS better than individual accomplishment.

BUT, the bottome line is: The most successful mentally handicapped people are less capable than the most successful non-handicapped. The comparison that I just made proves that pretty clearly.
If non MH'd people were given the same task as MH'd people and had the same number of responsibilities, they could do it.
No MH'd person could do what Bill Gates or Jay-Z have done in their lives.
The reason for this is simply genetics.

Look.
I understand that this is a sensitive subject. I'm sure I've offended people, that was not my intention.
All people deserve the same love. All I'm doing is using real life examples to prove a point. If you are urked by this, deal with it.


All people aren't created equal. All people aren't given equal opportunity.

You quoted yourself and showed it to be my post. How am I supposed to interpret what you meant by that?

I mentioned before it is not simply a matter of technology. What you are proposing is based on a map that is wrong. I try to paint you a more accurate map, which shows no destination that matches your description, but you still say "go here".

Obviously, you have a very simplistic view of how biology works. Things like nutrition, environment, education, opportunity, prior training, and so on have huge (if not dominant) influences on peoples lives. The better we understand biology, the less sense Eugenics will make, because we will find more and more ways for people to be functional and contributing.

Jordan was thought initially to not have enough baseketball talent, but he worked at it to become the best (possibly ever). Are you saying this was genetics? If so, then why wasn't he so good at the beginning?

Who cares if some people are on average better at somethings than others? How does that justify killing 10% of the population? They are people. Even killing one person without due process is a crime in almost all societies, and you are advocating 700 million because "people aren't equal"? Do you at least see how ridiculous this is sounding?

All right, last post for tonight...

We'll see if it is indeed

Well if you have a better idea let's hear it.

Lol. Practically any idea is better than mass genocide.

Education and cognitive behavioral therapy for those with behavior problems. Better medicine, including things like gene therapy for those with physical problems. Seems a lot simpler, less expensive, and more direct than, "do a 100 years of research on who we can kill off without reducing diversity, and the execute them en mass."

The goalpoasts have been shifted a lot here. If you go back to my OP post, and the posts afterward where people asked me to specify what I considered to be a disorder worth denying people a marriage liscence for, you will see that I am not even talking about these disorders. Would you say that the same applies for cystic fibrosis, multiple sclerosis, muscular dystrophy, cerebal palsy...? These are the kind of disorders that I was advocating sterilising people for, and made that very clear earlier.

"..." can mean a great many things. You started the thread listing a behavioral issue that could have been caused by a great many things. Then you listed things like attractiveness and sexual selection as forms of "Eugenics" we already do. Then you quoted killing 10% of the population (which the things you explicitly mentioned would fall extremely short). You keep saying you did thing that you didn't do. You did not make things very clear at all.

Again, see above. I don't even disagree with some of what you are saying here.

Well, if your version of Eugenics is more like the "death with dignity" thing, then you really chose the wrong word.

I was expecting people to suggest their solutions to the problem? Also, it is healthy to have these discussions from time to time.

I think the whole "What do you think about Eugenics?" theme probably made people focus on Eugenics. At least it did me.

 

[Kullervo]

We'll see if it is indeed

Unfortunately yes, this is too enticing. My work will have to wait

Lol. Practically any idea is better than mass genocide.

Education and cognitive behavioral therapy for those with behavior problems. Better medicine, including things like gene therapy for those with physical problems. Seems a lot simpler, less expensive, and more direct than, "do a 100 years of research on who we can kill off without reducing diversity, and the execute them en mass."

Much of this is some decades away in the future. This thread was provoked by my outrage at what is happening now, and I would like to see change sooner rather than later. AFAIK, we are unable to precisely and safely manipulate people's genomes. Therefore, any form of eugenics would be negative (setting restrictions on breeding, basically) and its effect would be more gradual.

"..." can mean a great many things. You started the thread listing a behavioral issue that could have been caused by a great many things. Then you listed things like attractiveness and sexual selection as forms of "Eugenics" we already do. Then you quoted killing 10% of the population (which the things you explicitly mentioned would fall extremely short). You keep saying you did thing that you didn't do. You did not make things very clear at all.

OK then:
My view is that people unable to provide for children should be unable to have them, and that people who can provide should be encouraged to have more.
For the purposes of this thread, I define a serious disorder as one which would effect your lifespan and ability to work normally, and can be inherited.

Somebody with autism might well be able to work and live to age 70+, unless they have another disorder as well. What I'm targeting is the group of people who can't fend for themselves in any way, but we as a society are nonetheless expected to support. I gave you some examples of disorders which come under this category.

Well, if your version of Eugenics is more like the "death with dignity" thing, then you really chose the wrong word.

In my experience, almost everybody wants to reproduce. But because we live in a society and not as lone couples, the interests and rights of society have to be taken into account as well as the interests and rights of the individual. I know that finding this balance is tough. However, things that other people have to go out and work to pay for are not rights.

 

[TheCheeseBurgerKing]

You quoted yourself and showed it to be my post. How am I supposed to interpret what you meant by that?

That was a typo, I'm sure it would've been really hard for you to figure that out on your own . Forgive me master .
Lmao, not.

Jordan was thought initially to not have enough baseketball talent, but he worked at it to become the best (possibly ever). Are you saying this was genetics? If so, then why wasn't he so good at the beginning?

Hahaha, no. That's not what I said. I'm saying that there is no autistic person anywhere that has been as successful as very many non-MH'd people have been. Whats-her-name that we have been talking about is probably among the most successful.
It's funny, I figured you would get my point the first time I made. It's okay though buddy, if you need me to say it 10 more times then I'll do that for you too. It's okay, you can do it! .

Who cares if some people are on average better at somethings than others? How does that justify killing 10% of the population? They are people. Even killing one person without due process is a crime in almost all societies, and you are advocating 700 million because "people aren't equal"? Do you at least see how ridiculous this is sounding?

Lol. If you had followed the posts I've been making, you see that at the beggining I said that I thought laws limiting child birth with couples who have proven to be prone to have MH'd children are a good idea.
Later on I said that I thought that genetic manipulation was a good idea, but that I think A LOT of research should be done first before any steps are actually taken.

Unless I missed something that [MENTION=21639]SilentMusings[/MENTION] said, no one has said anything about "killing off" anyone, lmao.
You know that prohibiting someone from having a kid and killing some one off are two different things right? Tough concept, I know.


To the rest of the crap you just wrote to me, I know that. The only point I ever made is that non-MH'd people have a higher ceiling or greater capacity than do MH'd people. Do I need to post that again? I've already said it at least 4 times. Here it is again in case you didn't get it, I can tell you're having a hard time.
Non-MH'd people have a higher ceiling or greater capacity than do MH'd people.

There ya go buddy. You'll get it soon enough, we all beleive in you !

 

[ygolo]

Unfortunately yes, this is too enticing. My work will have to wait

Lol. How did I know?

Much of this is some decades away in the future. This thread was provoked by my outrage at what is happening now, and I would like to see change sooner rather than later. AFAIK, we are unable to precisely and safely manipulate people's genomes. Therefore, any form of eugenics would be negative (setting restrictions on breeding, basically) and its effect would be more gradual.

Well, indeed. Stories like the one you posted are heart breaking. But forced sterilization is still something that can have unforseen consequences. There are reasons why even in the ethics of gene therapy, we still ban those therapies that eliminate things from the next generation.

I think education and social support are more natural way of dealing with the problems that come up now.

OK then:
My view is that people unable to provide for children should be unable to have them, and that people who can provide should be encouraged to have more.
For the purposes of this thread, I define a serious disorder as one which would effect your lifespan and ability to work normally, and can be inherited.

Somebody with autism might well be able to work and live to age 70+, unless they have another disorder as well. What I'm targeting is the group of people who can't fend for themselves in any way, but we as a society are nonetheless expected to support. I gave you some examples of disorders which come under this category.

Someone with autism might be able or might not be able. There was someone somebody posted on this forum who started off being considered retarded because of their condition who later becomes someone doing groundbreaking work in quantum physics.

Frankly, I think the burden of proof should be on those wanting to do central planning, whether it is economic or social in nature.

In my experience, almost everybody wants to reproduce. But because we live in a society and not as lone couples, the interests and rights of society have to be taken into account as well as the interests and rights of the individual. I know that finding this balance is tough. However, things that other people have to go out and work to pay for are not rights.

I too am well aware of the resources shortfall that we are heading straight into. But I am hopeful of a different way out. Finding ways to increase our resources. That is using our currently limited resources to remove the current limits, as has been, what I think as humanities defining characteristic.

I was at one point going to make a perhaps equally controversial thread called "Humanity's Ultimate Moral Choice:Space Travel, Eugenics, or Population Collapse". But my participation on this forum has dwindled, and I never got around to make that thread.

The logic is simple: resources are limited, we can either find ways to expand further, and space is the only frontier we can expand indefinitely, find ways to allocate resources that will ultimately be unfair, or try to be fair and let nature take its course.

My vote is for the first one. This may seem idealistic and impractical, but I think the other two are too. Fatalism should not be confused for practicality.

 

[ygolo]

That was a typo, I'm sure it would've been really hard for you to figure that out on your own . Forgive me master
Lmao, not.



Hahaha, no. That's not what I said. I'm saying that there is no autistic person anywhere that has been as successful as very many non-MH'd people have been. Whats-her-name that we have been talking about is probably among the most successful.
It's funny, I figured you would get my point the first time I made. It's okay though buddy, if you need me to say it 10 more times then I'll do that for you too. It's okay, you can do it! .



Lol. If you had followed the posts I've been making, you see that at the beggining I said that I thought laws limiting child birth with couples who have proven to be prone to have MH'd children are a good idea.
Later on I said that I thought that genetic manipulation was a good idea, but that I think A LOT of research should be done first before any steps are actually taken.

Unless I missed something that [MENTION=21639]SilentMusings[/MENTION] said, no one has said anything about "killing off" anyone, lmao.
You know that prohibiting someone from having a kid and killing some one off are two different things right? Tough concept, I know.


To the rest of the crap you just wrote to me, I know that. The only point I ever made is that non-MH'd people have a higher ceiling or greater capacity than do MH'd people. Do I need to post that again? I've already said it at least 4 times. Here it is again in case you didn't get it, I can tell you're having a hard time.
Non-MH'd people have a higher ceiling or greater capacity than do MH'd people.

There ya go buddy. You'll get it soon enough, we all beleive in you !

LOL. I was speaking more generally. Eugenics in its incarnations in the past have been mass genocides.

Yes, technically mass forced sterilizations are not mass killings, but the effect on genetics are similar. Also, if you think you can actually pull of the sterilizations without the killings in anything outside a dictatorship, you have a very different view of human nature than I do.

I agreed that people with mental disabilities on average tend to do less. But Bill Gates himself has some Autistic Traits (as do the Google Guys, and many of the Tech billionaires).

My point is a genetic one. It is not a matter of "once we figure out how to mass sterilize," we won't loose anything. It doesn't work that way. Negative Eugenics is a massive program aimed at attempting to improve the gene pool by massive centrally planned actions. This (however you try to couch it) makes it worse (less diverse).

10% of the population is a lot whether it is through mass killing or mass sterilizations. I doubt you can sterilize that many people without genocide as a consequence.

If you agree with me that reducing diversity is bad, then why would you not favor education and social support over something that could reasonably called Eugenics?

Next, are you going to tell me, that contraception and family planning are what you had in mind by the term, "Eugenics"?

EDIT: [MENTION=17452]collierm48[/MENTION] I know you think you addressed the point about genetics being complicated, but I am saying you did not. You misunderstood it as simply being about things being complicated, but failed to understand the complication itself.

It is not, again, simply a matter of figuring out how to do it without affecting our genetic strength. Our genetic strength IS the diversity of genes as a pool.

It does not matter, even if true, that people with particular afflictions, at best don't do as well as those without. The same genes produce greatness in some, and retardation in others. Beyond that, forced sterilization aimed at particular traits (instead of a more reasonable education and social support program which would also reduce the burden and improve productivity) would directly remove a variant of gene pool if successful. This directly reduces or effective population.

If you agree with the above, then what justification can you have for aiming at the genes rather than the behavior that you want to curb?