tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27939552.post5503344254966183952..comments2023-11-02T07:54:22.317+00:00Comments on Unenlightened Commentary.: Fun With Eugenics.Rosshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02263275229285861236noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27939552.post-1030536091084999252009-02-23T08:03:00.000+00:002009-02-23T08:03:00.000+00:00G Orwell:You mean dysgenicsY :-)G Orwell:<BR/><BR/>You mean <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dysgenics" REL="nofollow">dysgenics</A><BR/><BR/>Y :-)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27939552.post-81858281505293126202009-02-21T16:53:00.000+00:002009-02-21T16:53:00.000+00:00I do agree with everyone who argues that it is the...I do agree with everyone who argues that it is the incentives with the benefits system that should be changed. That would obviously be far easier to do than some overt selective breeding programme.Rosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02263275229285861236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27939552.post-9238872492597528322009-02-21T16:51:00.000+00:002009-02-21T16:51:00.000+00:00"Regarding the abortion-reduces-crime hypothesis, ...<I>"Regarding the abortion-reduces-crime hypothesis, I'm not sure the basis for it is particularly eugenic"</I><BR/><BR/>I'm sure Levitt would agree with you, but adoption studies which show how heritable criminality is make it hard to credit the idea that children will behave themselves providing their parents bring them up right. Good post at your place, I'll add a link at the end of my post.Rosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02263275229285861236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27939552.post-54558787283541462922009-02-21T16:43:00.000+00:002009-02-21T16:43:00.000+00:00"It's far simpler than that. If we stopped paying ..."It's far simpler than that. If we stopped paying The Underclass what are, relatively, huge amounts of money to have kids, then they'd stop doing so."<BR/>Very true, what we do now is misugenics - paying people who should not have children to have children.<BR/>A really crazy ideaAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27939552.post-18229434837343883792009-02-21T15:00:00.000+00:002009-02-21T15:00:00.000+00:00Mark Wadsworth got there before me. A reduction in...Mark Wadsworth got there before me. A reduction in child benefit, which has soared out of control under Labour, would suffice. I would cap any payments at number 3.<BR/><BR/>I would not reduce housing benefit or Jobseeker’s Allowance for single people. Many of them are caught in a trap which is not their own fault. But having children is a choice which, frankly, some people should exercise. It is not our place to forcibly stop them unless they are abusive, but neither is it our place to provide funding for what they cannot do themselves.<BR/><BR/>The basic argument for this is that a liberal society is only possible when the majority of people are self-reliant & rational enough to live their own lives with little or no state involvement. This is why a servile underclass are natural friends to an authoritarian state. <BR/><BR/>The problem I’ve always got is that it’s so hard to decide who is decent & who is lowlife. I know a load of single parents & people who haven’t worked in years. The majority are thoroughly decent people who are hindered by lack of available work & the fact that they are not qualified for what work there is, which is often temporary & insecure anyway.<BR/><BR/>But they could be rescued, whereas I think the likes of Karen Matthews are beyond hope. Because I do not vilify all welfare claimants, my “reforms” would be very modest & would centre around reducing child benefit (for large families) as that is the really crucial bit. If we instill in them responsibility for the next generation, these problems we have can be reduced.<BR/><BR/>There will always be unemployment, but unemployment is not necessarily a killer if it is short-term & people get jobs soon enough. It is deeply immoral, about the worst thing I can think of short of physical or sexual abuse, to inflict this “lifestyle” on a baby. I think it is a lot worse than abortion. As for adoption, people talk glibly about it as a solution to all our woes but I doubt whether it is because there isn’t an unlimited stream of adoptive parents especially for those severely damaged in the early years.asquithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14246701347539264295noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27939552.post-60471847288443060512009-02-21T04:06:00.000+00:002009-02-21T04:06:00.000+00:00Regarding the abortion-reduces-crime hypothesis, I...Regarding the abortion-reduces-crime hypothesis, I'm not sure the basis for it is particularly eugenic, it's more that if a child is born in circumstances where it isn't wanted, it's likely to be less well cared for, and therefore more likely to turn out a bad 'un.<BR/><BR/>BTW, I've previously discussed eugenics <A HREF="http://cabalamat.wordpress.com/2008/08/10/eugenics-is-nothing-to-be-scared-of/" REL="nofollow">here</A>.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27939552.post-71409062003402451012009-02-20T17:34:00.000+00:002009-02-20T17:34:00.000+00:00has got progressively worse since 1966, when the m...<I>has got progressively worse since 1966, when the more rigorous (and moralistic) criteria applied by the National Assistance Board were ditched in favour of much looser eligibility criteria under the Supplementary Benefit regs</I><BR/><BR/>When the original welfare state was created it used the qualification model. ie your entitlement was because you contributed to the social fund. That was replaced by the rights model. You are entitled because you need it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27939552.post-79307877942133285452009-02-20T15:44:00.000+00:002009-02-20T15:44:00.000+00:00'That may be true now but it was a originally prod...'That may be true now but it was a originally product of progressive generally leftist opinion.'<BR/>Absolutely true- there were motions presented (but not I think passed)at Labour Party Conferences in the 1930s calling for the 'sterilisation of defectives'- usually by womens's groups !(I think they got outvoted by members with Catholic backgrounds).<BR/>Our horror at eugenics derives very largely from the horrors carried out in its name by the Nazis.<BR/>BTW The problem of paying the underclass 'relatively, huge amounts of money' has got progressively worse since 1966, when the more rigorous (and moralistic) criteria applied by the National Assistance Board were ditched in favour of much looser eligibility criteria under the Supplementary Benefit regs.Keith Joseph pointed this out in 1974- the roasting he got from the liberal elite as a consequence was nearly as strong as that applied to Enoch after his 'Rivers of Blood'speech in 1968. We are now enjoying the bitter fruits of the moral indignation extruded by the bien pensants more than 30 years ago.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27939552.post-14935283515337413592009-02-20T12:57:00.001+00:002009-02-20T12:57:00.001+00:00"It's far simpler than that. If we stopped paying ...<I>"It's far simpler than that. If we stopped paying "</I><BR/><BR/>Yes I'd agree with that.Rosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02263275229285861236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27939552.post-61069596838409986512009-02-20T12:57:00.000+00:002009-02-20T12:57:00.000+00:00That may be true now but it was a originally produ...<I>That may be true now but it was a originally product of progressive generally leftist opinion. "</I><BR/><BR/>Yes, the discussion to which I referred in the post occured in a post about the early 20th century socialist Beatrice Webb.Rosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02263275229285861236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27939552.post-30521705149848211842009-02-20T12:23:00.000+00:002009-02-20T12:23:00.000+00:00Eugenics is strongly associated with the savagery ...<I>Eugenics is strongly associated with the savagery of the Nazis</I><BR/><BR/>That may be true now but it was a originally product of progressive generally leftist opinion. If you look at the advocates worldwide they were far more frequently of the left than the right. The Margaret Sangers of this world were noted eugenicists. <BR/><BR/>In Scandinavia, the practice of sterilising 'unfit' adults ceased as late as the 1970s. <BR/><BR/>In the US the states which promoted it were overwhelmingly controlled by the Democrat party.<BR/><BR/>In Nazi Germany they introduced the same practice using the US example as <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_v._Bell" REL="nofollow">precedent</A>. I can't find a link now but I believe the medical procedure in Germany took its name from something in this case, (something along the lines of Virginia procedure or Holmes technique).<BR/><BR/>It's part of a noted paradox - the amnesia of the left. Failures of the left in time become failures of western civilisation. Not so failures of the right.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27939552.post-28147412770312701952009-02-20T11:32:00.000+00:002009-02-20T11:32:00.000+00:00(I meant "at least 50% of the variance in mental a...(I meant "at least 50% of the variance in mental ability". I think!)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27939552.post-51160128444611082752009-02-20T11:31:00.000+00:002009-02-20T11:31:00.000+00:00Mark,One of the alarming conclusions of Steven Pin...Mark,<BR/><BR/>One of the alarming conclusions of Steven Pinker's <I>The Blank Slate</I> is that at least 50 per cent of mental ability is attributable to inheritance. So basically we're subsidising the moronification of our society.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27939552.post-78464041942420740282009-02-20T11:24:00.000+00:002009-02-20T11:24:00.000+00:00It's far simpler than that. If we stopped paying T...It's far simpler than that. If we stopped paying The Underclass what are, relatively, huge amounts of money to have kids, then they'd stop doing so.Mark Wadsworthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07733511175178098449noreply@blogger.com