Documentation
Getting Started
FAQ
Formatting
Troubleshooting
Program Credits

The concept of eugenics as a means to advance the human species seems extremely logical to me. The practice should be based on intelligence and trait selections for breeding without racial considerations (if a person has a high IQ and other good traits, then they should be a prime candidate for selective breeding regardless of race). Those who are found to have genetic defects or extremely low IQ's which could be hereditary should be sterilized to ensure a quicker and more efficient evolvement of our species. This may seem harsh, but it also seems very logical.
There should also be programs established so that sterilized couples could adopt and still experience raising a family if they have the means to do so.
Eugenicism has been practiced in the past and I think we should look at the great potential it has without condemning it for the bad management of those who implemented it wrongly in the past.
Population control is an issue that we are going to have to confront eventually anyway and I think Eugenics should be considered in those issues.
I would gladly volunteer to become sterilized if it were for the good of our species. I think too many people are selfish about this and aren't willing to consider what's best for humanity as a whole.

There are two types of eugenics: Negative and Positive. Negative eugenics discourages "bad traits" from entering the gene pool, and nositive eugenics encourages "good traits" to spread. While there may be many apparent advantages to eugenics, consider the consequences.

Negative eugenics would likely be percieved as a huge human rights violation no matter how it was carried out. Positive eugenics would likely cause incompatible couples to be married, which, while it might lead to smart kids, it would also lead to a high divorce rate and a bunch of broken homes. So at what cost do you want eugenics? Would you rather have average happy kids or disgruntled smart kids populating the country?

There's another major consideration you didn't adderss: there's no one on this Earth that I would trust to administrate such a eugenics program. I certainly wouldn't want to do it.

You have also forgotton about the distinction between "good" and "bad" traits. The extremely altruistic Mike Smith may not be so eager to give up his reproductive freedom if someone judged that he was "unfit" on grounds such as "he has a predisposition to be a terrorist/freedom fighter". I use this example as a terrorist to one person is a freedom fighter to another so "good" and "bad" traits are not absolutes.
Where do you draw the line? Some things like criminality may be considered by all to be a "bad" trait but then you are forgetting the part that nurture plays in moulding people.
Finally, even if we agree that a trait is "bad"
like extremely low IQ who are we to say that a person with extremely low IQ cannot contribute to society with at the very least a smile.
Anyway difference is interesting, if we were all the same it would be boring and there is a good biological argument for diversity and hybrid vigour. If we homogenized the human race we could all be wiped out by one epidemic..good for humanity as a whole? I don't think so.

I would also point out that Dan's argument to preserve diversity is a short-sighted one. It is undeniable as we become more integrated that complete homogeneity of the human race is simply a matter of time, be it a few hundred or a few thousand more years from now. We will eventually be undiscernable as to our genetic or racial heritage. As a result, I think our species will greatly benefit from beginning to phase out dysgenic qualities sooner rather than later.
Perhaps a well thought out and sensitive eugenics program could be initiated as a voluntary program and presented as the positive development for humanity that it should be. It would have to be an individual choice of course as most things in life are.

Mike Smith has brought some very valid and interesting ideas to this debate but has not yet refuted my point on the blurred line between "good" and "bad" traits we must choose keep or be destroyed in a Eugenics program.
I have to admit that the IDEA of eugenics seems like a good one and I have not yet come to a final conclusion in my mind, this is why I am participating in this discussion. I hope to be able to clarify my own views in the course of this debate, I seek merely to explore all possible arguments.
The idea that eugenics would be a kind of progression of evolution for the human race is one that I would like to consider more.
I suggest that as evolution works by selective pressures (and some would argue that humans are no longer under these pressures due to the construction of our societies)that to impose artificial pressures would defeat the point. We may find ourselves (as a species) unequipped to deal with any new evolutionary pressures imposed upon us at some time in the future.
I agree with Mike Smith that ULTIMATE homogenisation and integration of peoples in the world is inevitable but it seems to me that this is a good reason to preserve diversity in other areas of human existence.
Just as a politically incorrect footnote:
If everybody had IQs of 117 who would collect the rubbish (garbage) and sweep the streets?
We would have lots of intellectually frustrated workers in the world, it's a dirty job but someone's got to do it!
Finally, although I am not sure I agree with everything Mike Smith says he seems to have ideas which demonstrate a lot of common sense and a generally benign approach to managing a eugenics program. If I eventually decide to disagree with him I may argue that this is a more dangerous approach than the more common historical "ethnic cleansing" approach as it is not so immediately repugnant.

I'd like to thank Dan for not automatically condemning my thoughts without atleast giving consideration to them first.
In regards to Dan's footnote...
The Ashkenazi Jew IQ of 117 I mentioned is an average; there is an elite among them with IQ's over 170 and a significant number on the other end of the IQ spectrum. I don't believe with any eugenics program that the entire population would ever level out at a specific IQ.
I don't buy the notion that intelligent people are too lazy or unwilling to do physical work and that you must have no more than the average Hispanic IQ of 94 to be content laboring.
I myself work an average of 48 hours per week landscaping. I enjoy my work and take great pride in what I do.
I believe that if all blue-collar workers were more intelligent that most who weren't content would participate in extracurricular activities and find other ways to contribute to society as an outlet.
What is frustrating to me is the common incompetence currently found among many of my fellow laborers, even when dealing with the simplest of tasks. I feel that as we only worry about money and let the dysgenic factors of this problem proliferate, the quality of our products and services deteriorates. We are distracted from such gradual rot though when the elite still among us develope new technology or inventions which make our lives better.
Anyway, I believe eugenics could eventually improve this situation.
As far as the blurred line between good traits and bad traits...
This is very difficult and would take endless research to ever hope of being able to find widely acceptable answers and conclusions.
I think a good starting point for a eugenics program would be to focus on voluntary sterilization of people with severe diseases and defects known to be heritable.
The next step would likely be to establish a degreed list of all diseases, behaviors, mental abilities/disabilities, and physical abilities/disabilities that are largely hereditary and "democratically" try to priority the various qualities from most favorable and important to least favorable and important.
Obviously, nobody should ever be eliminated from or oppressed in society for any reason. The worst that should happen is sterilization of a person.
I still think that an adoption program would be an excellent idea for those who opt for sterilization but still have the means and desire to raise a family.
Since dysgenic qualities would undoubtedly be found among many indigent, it would be a good idea to establish foundations that offer grants and additional aid to those who choose to participate in the program.
We might eventually even consider forcing sterilization on hardened criminals and augment crime deterrence even further...a win/win situation for society. (criminals being the only segment who should ever be "forced" to paticipate).
In the long term, I believe such efforts and costs would reimburse humankind a thousand- fold.

I agree and disagree with many of each of your views. Eugenics involves moral, biological, technological, and even religious ethics.
In most of your views, you seem to favor intelligent humans. Given, at one point of time we have all wished we had the intelligence of a genious. However, this would leave few human genes. And how about those that are incredibly book smart, but carry no commen sense. Are we wanting a future society to lack common sense that in our daily life is more useful than that of a high IQ?
How about those of us preeching individuality? Is this teaching people to be themselves, and that it is good to be "different". By doing this in a "'round about" way are we not exterminating those that are of less intelligence? If we alter this society/human race to this point what is there going to be left for diversity? Do we really want to live in a world where everyone is the same?
We teach that everyone is equal in the United States-granted, we all know that is not true. How do we expect people to become more accepting and open if all we want to do is get rid of "bad traits"? And who wants to set the standards of who has "good traits" and who has "bad traits".
I believe that everyone should have a chance to be an individual,and have a chance to try and succeed in life.
I do understand that Eugenics has many pros in the medical field. Many couples can not have children and would like to. This would be a way for them to have children. But at what cost? The big question is, will this turn out to be like parents ordering out of a catalogue?
Almost everything on this earth was made without a duplicate. For some great reason this was meant to be. So do we want to alter life on this earth to a point where we can not bring the diversity back?

This discussion is one of personal ideology at it's core.
I am agnostic regarding all religions personally and don't carry the philosophical "shackles" that many religious people would have pertaining to this subject.
I do not entirely accept things as factual until they have been proven to be. In modern society, it has been undeniably proven that the Earth is round instead of flat, therefore I accept this as being the case.
Is it right to interfere with our genetics?
well, I would ask...
Are humans a part of nature?
Are our behaviors of testing, learning, advancing, and creating somehow unnatural?...If so, why do we have these abilities?
We don't condemn other animals for unnatural behaviors...so assuming that humans are animals and part of the natural order of things; if we learn how to and aid the evolvement of our species and whatever else we seek to improve on...Is this behavior unnatural?
We have too many questions without answers in our present world. I wouldn't say that we will never know the answer to any questions, since we eventually seem to discover them. However, I hope that fear and philosophical dogma will not stifle our progress and ability to eventually answer every question we have and will have.
Genetic research and the Human Genome Project are making great strides now. An article I read in Time magazine was saying that in another 5 years, doctors will have signs outside their offices saying "build better babies" through genetic enhancements. They've created mice that are far more intelligent and capable than other mice and say that it's just a matter of time before they can do the same for humans. There are studies now claiming that atleast 60% of animal (including human) behavior, personality, and characteristics is genetic determined rather than environmental. Genetics play the biggest role in who and what we are. It seems obvious that if we want to improve ourselves, we should learn all about the very thing that determines us before we are ever born.
Should we all be the same?
I don't think so...diversity is important and good to a large degree, but there are always aspects that can and probably should be improved if we have the technology and ability to do so.
This is my view and I'm sure that there are many who will disagree with me wholeheartedly. This debate will become more widespread in the coming years as eugenics and genetic manipulation become viable ways for people to improve the lives of themselves and their family (assuming you agree that healthier people with better mental and physical capacities is an improvement).
We aren't there yet, but it's simply a matter of time unless we stop discovering and learning...In which case we would still be living on a flat planet.

Mike,has it occured to you that your Jew elite of IQ 170+ once mentioned genius as 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration?There are reasons for and against eugenics,however,there seems to be something not thought of here.Recessive detrimental genes.If only 1 in 1,000,000 people show this trait,it implies that there are another 1,000 people carrying this gene in a 'latent' form.Last I heard,the world's population numbered 4.2 billion.How do you propose we test ALL the 4.2 billion and sterilise the 1.01 MILLION people with this gene?It is the equivilent of trying to sterilise a small country!(Hardy-Weinberg Eqn).

I could spout all the rethoric I like and not change your mind, instead I'll leave you with a story.In the 1970's Singapore's Prime Minister,now former PM avocated an eugenics program.Nothing terrible about it,just advertising encouraging degree holders to marry other degree holders etc.However after a while,the program was quietly scrapped.Why?He had his second grandchild...an albino.An albino grandchild from a grandfather Time magazine acclaimed as "probably one of the greatest problem solvers of the 20th century",with the child's father being another minister.

Moral of this story:Nature isn't above throwing
high IQ families a few curve
balls now and then.What to do
with a high IQ albino?
Sterilise?Let breed?

Is there anything seriously detrimental about being an albino? I think a successful eugenics program would definitely have to deal with more serious "defects"...I don't think appearances count (unless maybe you have an Elephant Man type of thing happening and it's determined to be a hereditary disorder).
Many things in life are a gamble and there are always exceptions to every rule, but if you can take steps to increase your odds of success, shouldn't you?
Recent developments in genetics indicate that we will probably be able to add/remove/alter genes in embryos to eliminate disorders and enhance traits & abilities in the future. This would increase our odds of success dramatically and likely eliminate the idea of needing a eugenics program anyway. There may some day be equipment developed that will be in every doctor's office to scan an embryo and determine it's entire genetic construction while listing all the disorders related to those genes...and at the push of a button, make the appropriate alterations to ensure that the child will be healthy, bright, and capable.

Mike Smith is very gay!