Coerced birthcontrol shots for those on welfare legal?

[Geosurface]

You are assuming people on welfare are stupid.

Not entirely. I'm assuming they're disproportionately lower IQ as compared to the segment of the population who are not on welfare. I'm sure there are some geniuses on welfare and some idiots with spotless work records. We're talking averages.

who is stupider, a single mom who leaves her kids alone all day to work some dead end low paying job, or a single mom who stays at home on welfare to take care of her kids and maybe study for a better job down the road?

There may indeed be some very prudent reasons a person would take advantage of our various social programs. This doesn't change the fact that people doing so in the quantities that we have, which will only go up, is a recipe for our society collapsing.

And it isn't just a matter of IQ here. I believe motivation is influenced by biology too. I believe people can be inherently more lazy than others. Though certain environments will either encourage these tendencies, or discourage them.

You might have someone who is very predisposed to laziness but if they're in an extremely harsh environment, they aren't going to get the chance to express that tendency.

 

[Orignal Earl]

If someone is very Hitler like, it's probably a good thing to make sure they don't reproduce right?
In most of these cases though, Ive noticed the individuals themselves choose not to have kids
It's like nature has handled it already

 

[Agent11]

The genome is complete and accessible.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genome/proteins/51?project_id=20837

You go figure it out.

Not for all mankind ofc but first you need to figure out which protein is doing what exactly wrt to intelligence if that's how you think it works. Its probably easier to just use standardized tests but go get'r done yeah.

What I meant was completely understood, rather than completely mapped, and available for mass consumption.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Geosurface, I'm confused about what you're arguing here. Are you saying that we would benefit from instituting a eugenics program to ensure that only the best and brightest are bred together to create the most genetically desirable offspring? There's a few things wrong with that. First, there's the obvious moral implications of telling certain people they aren't good enough to reproduce, but let's ignore morality for a minute. What traits are desirable? Intelligence, athleticism, resistance to disease, family history of longevity, perfect teeth, hair, vision, height... There's a lot of different factors to consider when determining what's "desirable" and if we intentionally select for those traits, you start running into the risk you get with purebred dogs where a lack of genetic diversity in the breeding population reveals itself as undesirable traits that could potentially threaten lifespan. You may think that the Aryan Nordic type is the ideal, but they're a lot more susceptible to sunburn and malaria, which would be significant issues in tropical climates. Genetic diversity is important to ensuring the health of a population, and if you start a program aimed at achieving a specific ideal, you're intentionally limiting diversity; that's a terrible plan from a genetic standpoint.

And even if you manage to come up with a method of selecting ideal traits while maintaining enough genetic diversity to keep the population healthy, if everyone has a high IQ, who is doing our menial labor? As Judge Smails said in Caddyshack, "the world needs ditchdiggers too." There are a lot of jobs that are considered beneath the level of someone with a high IQ; if you start breeding a race of superhumans, who is going to be flipping burgers, cleaning bathrooms, stocking shelves, driving trucks, picking up trash and all the other menial jobs that geniuses don't want to do? We can't have a society comprised solely of rocket scientists and brain surgeons; there's a lot of other shit that needs to get done.

And finally, how would you even go about policing such a program? Obviously we're just discussing a hypothetical, but the transition to implementing such a plan proved too difficult for the totalitarian regime of the Nazis; what chance do we have? We'd have to completely restructure society to strip away any semblance of freedom; if two people managed to get out on their own, they could produce a baby completely unbeknownst to our government, and any such offspring would inherently weaken the strength of our superman program by diluting the gene pool with inferior genetic material. We'd essentially have to turn our society into a Matrix-like colony of government studs and broodmares with desirable traits. Or we could just kill off all the undesirables. Regardless, the implementation of such a policy would destroy every single facet of our society; is it worth it in the pursuit of the perfect human?

From a moral standpoint, eugenics is completely indefensible. But even when you set morality aside, eugenics is completely illogical. It's just not a good idea in any way, shape or form.

 

[Tango]

Not entirely. I'm assuming they're disproportionately lower IQ as compared to the segment of the population who are not on welfare. I'm sure there are some geniuses on welfare and some idiots with spotless work records. We're talking averages.

When you are dealing with human life talking averages does not make any sense, unless you are 12.

I also believe you think intelligence is much more genetics-determined than it actually is.

Growing up I had a friend who was the son of gypsies. His parents were basically illiterate. The guy however was clearly a genius, in the true Renaissance meaning of the term. By the time he was 14 he had been caught multiple times for small property offenses. One could have easily dismissed the case as the obvious proof that a nut never falls very far from the tree.
Yet, he later won a scholarship for Cambridge, went the PhD route and now is a distinguished scholar at the very top of his field.

Each individual has her own story. It is nobody's job to decide what's going to be based on averages.

 

[Geosurface]

From a moral standpoint, eugenics is completely indefensible. But even when you set morality aside, eugenics is completely illogical. It's just not a good idea in any way, shape or form.

I feel like you are not being imaginative enough and you're being too paranoid too.

Put all that crap about Orwellian society with broodmares aside and take a deep breath.

How about if we just cut social programs massively, and started incentivizing people with desirable traits (but traits which don't tend to be as common as we'd like when left to their own devices, because for instance intelligence seems to lead to more restraint in reproduction) to have more children through tax cuts and cash payments, and disincentivizing people with undesirable traits (low IQ, genetic defects, family history of perpetual criminality, etc) which tend to be way more common than we'd like with the same thing. Tax breaks and cash payments.

That'd go a long way right there. I don't think that'd be so Orwellian or horrible.

What if you could know for a fact that NOT doing anything in this regard would inevitably lead to society simply collapsing 100 years from now? Would you change your tune?

When you are dealing with human life talking averages does not make any sense, unless you are 12.

I also believe you think intelligence is much more genetics-determined than it actually is.

Growing up I had a friend who was the son of gypsies. His parents were basically illiterate. The guy however was clearly a genius, in the true Renaissance meaning of the term. By the time he was 14 he had been caught multiple times for small property offenses. One could have easily dismissed the case as the obvious proof that a nut never falls very far from the tree.
Yet, he later won a scholarship for Cambridge, went the PhD route and now is a distinguished scholar at the very top of his field.

Each individual has her own story. It is nobody's job to decide what's going to be based on averages.

Keep in mind that environment can make someone with good genetics for high IQ into effectively an idiot, but environment CANNOT make someone with bad genetics for low IQ into a genius.

So his parents may have had great potential but not been in the right environment for it to come out, whereas he was. Or he could be a fluke and have ended up with a much higher IQ than his parents.

There are always exceptions but again, IQ is highly heritable and this is widely accepted.

 

[theeedude]

Not entirely. I'm assuming they're disproportionately lower IQ as compared to the segment of the population who are not on welfare. I'm sure there are some geniuses on welfare and some idiots with spotless work records. We're talking averages.



There may indeed be some very prudent reasons a person would take advantage of our various social programs. This doesn't change the fact that people doing so in the quantities that we have, which will only go up, is a recipe for our society collapsing.

And it isn't just a matter of IQ here. I believe motivation is influenced by biology too. I believe people can be inherently more lazy than others. Though certain environments will either encourage these tendencies, or discourage them.

You might have someone who is very predisposed to laziness but if they're in an extremely harsh environment, they aren't going to get the chance to express that tendency.

Low birth rates are a recipe for a society collapsing.

 

[Agent11]

We need high birth rates and lots of genetic material. We have the technology now to completely colonize the moon. Resources obtained from excavating the moon can be used to expand into the solar system at speed.

 

[Geosurface]

Low birth rates are a recipe for a society collapsing.

Low birth rates for certain types of people are a recipe for a society collapsing. Whereas high birth rates for other types of people are a recipe for society collapsing.

The most effective recipe is both at the same time. That's what we have now.

 

[Tango]

Keep in mind that environment can make someone with good genetics for high IQ into effectively an idiot, but environment CANNOT make someone with bad genetics for low IQ into a genius.

This is not correct. Both genetics and environment have dramatic effect in determining the adult level of IQ. In fact last time I read about it the consensus was environment was by far the most important factor.

A genius is by definition an outlier, that usually needs both factors to align. But we are talking about extreme cases. From a social perspective it is way more important to understand how much it is important to give to every child an environment conducive to good mental development.

 

[zinfamous]

People werent more responsible back then? Accidents happened, yes, but nobody WANTED to fall pregnant without the resources to support themselves. Yet that is what people do today, because they know welfare will pick up the check.

pure delusion. people got preggers all the time when they couldn't afford it. nothing has changed.

Only difference is that the more or less inevitable abortion is far safer.

Also, people aren't having a dozen kids more regularly, due to the expectation of 30% mortality. Now it's 2.5 kids (though, I'm not sure what 0.5 kids is like... :hmm🙂

so, thank progress.

 

[Geosurface]

last time I read about it the consensus was environment was by far the most important factor.

Is that why the American Psychological Association estimates IQ to be .75 heritable, leaving only .25 for environment?

Other estimates I've seen are similar.

 

[Tango]

Is that why the American Psychological Association estimates IQ to be .75 heritable, leaving only .25 for environment?

Other estimates I've seen are similar.

It's more complicated than that...

Heritability measures in infancy are as low as 0.2, around 0.4 in middle childhood, and as high as 0.8 in adulthood. One proposed explanation is that people with different genes tend to reinforce the effects of those genes, for example by seeking out different environments. Debate is ongoing about whether these heritability estimates are too high, owing to inadequate consideration of various factors — such as the environment being relatively more important in families with low socioeconomic status, or the effect of the maternal (fetal) environment.

...as you see the genetic component is very low in children. But since there is correlation with good environments it then self-reinforces as individuals age.
This is why it is of critical importance to insure all children have access to a learning environment conducive to mental development.

 

[Fayd]

Jonathan Swift proposed the same thing almost 300 years ago!

whoa 😱D😀:

 

[Whiskey16]

People have no problem understanding how important it is to control the population of cats and dogs because we've created an artificial environment for them where food is plentiful, danger is minimal, and over-breeding therefore becomes a very real danger (sound familiar?)

..

We understand the power of selective breeding and population control just fine when we're talking about other animals. When we're talking about dog shows and horse races which ultimately just show off the talent of the breeders who selected for the traits.

Why is it that we have fooled ourselves into thinking we don't have to apply this knowledge and understanding IN ANY WAY to our own species, and that somehow this will never have any negative impact? It is madness.

A notable fascist, violent, and bigoted white-supremacist, remains presently with a home.

In typical bigotry and hatred, again dehumanising his undesirables as he has swept into this honey pot of a vile eugenics topic.

This member keeps consistent on his soap box to spread infamous racist and vile views...:

... disincentivizing people with undesirable traits (low IQ, genetic defects, family history of perpetual criminality, etc)
.

Undersirables? Blacks. Those are among the groups you diminish and rate below yourself.

 

[Siddhartha]

an effective way to stop the next generation of people on welfare is birthcontrol shots for any girl/woman of child bearing age. also applies to those on social security disability.

1 shot every 3months, paid for by Medicaid.

now the problem is how to get them to the clinic?

stick: threaten to reduced their welfare $?
carrot: give them an extra $25 that month for getting the shot?

and no repurcussions to the doc if the girl does get pregnant since the shots are only 97% effective.

Would you want to be forced to take birth control?

 

[ivwshane]

A notable fascist, violent, and bigoted white-supremacist, remains presently with a home.

In typical bigotry and hatred, again dehumanising his undesirables as he has swept into this honey pot of a vile eugenics topic.

This member keeps consistent on his soap box to spread infamous racist and vile views...

I was wondering when someone else was going to spot this. Racist now a days wear suit and ties and no longer shave their heads or tatoo their bodies in nazi symbols, they now try to blend in with the guise of pseudoscience playing to peoples most basic of human/animal instincts all in the pursuit of a "pure" race.

You can fool some people but you can't fool then all.

 

[Whiskey16]

Geosurface, I'm confused about what you're arguing here.

Let me provide an honest background and thereby perspective upon this poster:

Originally Posted by geosurface:

Race, genetics and crime


The Thug Gene

A year ago I [Geosurface] was a devoted racial egalitarian and liberal. I then got my "nose under the tent" of information like this, and simply by virtue of not successfully burying my head in the sand, and accepting the truth of these studies, and their obvious connection to observed crime rates, social problems, etc... I am now, according to many, a "racist"

I'm curious. What does it mean to be a racist? Does one automatically become a racist when exposed to certain truths unless they successfully avoid taking said truths on board?

Is it meaningful to be considered a "racist" when you fully acknowledge that this is all just about AVERAGES and that every group, including blacks, produces plenty of amazing, brilliant, gentle people too?

But if some groups produce certain problematic types of people at a far higher rate than other groups do, or other types of very desirable (for civilization) people at a much lower rate... should this have implications for say, immigration policy?

And finally, how would you even go about policing such a program? Obviously we're just discussing a hypothetical, but the transition to implementing such a plan proved too difficult for the totalitarian regime of the Nazis...

No coincidence that you raised consideration of the German Third Reich, as beyond the above, Geosurface has provided a few other examples of how to implement a pogrom against undesirables...:

Originally Posted by Geosurface
I reflect that I would have absolutely no problem with every European nation putting out a message saying if you're first or second generation Muslim immigrant, depart now. You have one week, after which time the army of each nation will simply enter the heavily Muslim districts with a shoot on sight policy.

Originally Posted by Geosurface
Exactly. The upper hand will be gained by them [Muslim immigrant population] in the near future if through no other means, then through birth rate alone.

So this is why I say, violence may be the only answer.

I know it seems harsh, but I truly believe the choice is between doing some really, really distasteful shit (killing lots, and lots of people) or watching European civilization, culture, and tradition be utterly wiped out or nearly so.

To me, the killing sounds better.

Atomic Playboy, you are now aware of who and what you are dealing with.

Geosurface remains quite consistent and at home being a violently white-supremacist and racist piece of shit.

 

[OverVolt]

Ugh.

 

[Geosurface]

Whiskey16 continues to be what he always is, a censorious alarmist and weird internet stalker. As long as we're doing the "don't take him seriously because of his other posts and what other people think of him" game, take some time to look at Whiskey16's track record and how much respect he warrants around here, if you're one of those "go with the herd" types.

I've said some things in the past which I regret now, and have apologized for them repeatedly. Of course Whiskey's mindset is, if I said something he would completely agree with and later disavowed it, that shit's gone FOREVER. If, however I say something he finds to be a juicy "gotcha" moment and I disavow that, too bad... it is forever my most dearly held belief no matter what, according to him.

Talking about applying some of our knowledge to ourselves about heritability of traits and the dangers of over-population that we apply with no hesitation regarding other species, is not crazy in any way.

It also has nothing to do inherently with "racism' - since even if the only race on the planet was Eskimos, they would still face *exactly* this same issue. The whole issue of traits which benefit society vs. traits which are a detriment to it applies every bit as much no matter what group of people you're looking at. There is no genome which is magically immune from the tendency of negative traits to outbreed positive traits once an environment of plenty has been established.

Racist now a days wear suit and ties and no longer shave their heads or tatoo their bodies in nazi symbols

Nowadays? Really?

You do understand that the eugenics movement in the US was pretty much universally embraced by the power elite and educated class in this country back before it became unfairly associated with the Nazis, right?

It is no less absurd to let that association taint an important scientific consideration for our species going forward, than it would be to forever be terrified of running our railroads efficiently because the Nazis did! Or making our military forces stop doing marches to music, and wearing uniforms, because the Nazis did that too!

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

You are assuming they are going to be poor. Maybe not, if they get a good education.

Some will escape. Most won't. Education is an ignored opportunity too often and this is a failure of the left to understand. No motivation, no work ethic, and no real need to change means status quo. Change all that and not have jobs instead of programs and you have better educated people on welfare. You said so yourself.

 

[Orignal Earl]

Ja..Ja...Herr Geo

Your intellect and ability to type very fast has been acknowledged and of course your certificate of excellent typing for society is in the mail
Our state would surely be a verse one vithout your typing skill

Now if you will allow us to administer your state approved flu shot, ve vill be on our vay and you can get back to your typing

Danke und have a nice day

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Ja..Ja...Herr Geo

Your intellect and ability to type very fast has been acknowledged and of course your certificate of excellent typing for society is in the mail
Our state would surely be a verse one vithout your typing skill

Now if you will allow us to administer your state approved flu shot, ve vill be on our vay and you can get back to your typing

Danke und have a nice day

Now I want a good German beer.

 

[Orignal Earl]

Now I want a good German beer.

Not during the Olympics, you don't

Cheers

🙂

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Not during the Olympics, you don't

Cheers

🙂

Best Canadian beer

Best beer in the world

Cheers :biggrin:

Don't forget to pull for the US curling teams.😛