Critique My Idea For A Eugenic State

[Juns]

 - IQ is mainly genetic, and while environmental factors are important, they only allow one to reach their genetic IQ potential.
    - We currently live in a world where intelligence is not being selected for, as we do not have harsh Darwinian conditions where the less intelligent are unable to spread their genes. Instead, we live in a post-industrial, wealthy world, specifically in developed countries, where more intelligent people tend to have fewer children, while less intelligent people have more children. They are not punished by the environment for doing so because of welfare and the general ease of survival in post-industrial developed countries.
    - Genetic IQ is decreasing in developed countries, and the Flynn effect only accounts for the environmental maximization of genetic IQ potential.
    - A possible solution to this would be a state where comprehensive intelligence tests are administered to all people. Those who have a low G factor, or whatever metric is used, would be sterilized. This state would provide abundant welfare for sterilized individuals if they need it, ensuring they have fulfilling lives. The only thing that would be prevented is the passing on of less intelligent genes into the gene pool of the country.
    - Embryo selection technology and other such technologies might also be utilized.
    - These policies could lead to an increase in the intelligence of the country over time, resulting in better lives for everyone due to more innovation, improved infrastructure, and a stronger economy, all driven by more intelligent individuals working for and running it.
    - Some possible flaws of this model that I have considered include the accuracy of the intelligence testing, trust in the state to wield such power, civil and human rights concerns, and the challenge of ensuring that intelligent people continue to have children to maintain a stable population.
    - I believe that this model could work and could lead to an amazing society if implemented correctly and if my assumptions are accurate. I understand that people have differing views, but I think this would be a great plan for a country to try out, exploring new territory and moving away from the mainstream in pursuit of the global maxima.


    - improvements and random thoughts: 
        - evidence for IQ being mainly genetic in developed countries
        - ethical concerns
            - i think it would be a net good considering the alternative is a decrease in IQ overtime leading to a worse society and possibly the collapse of civilisatoin 
        - accuracy of intelligence testing
        - state power
            - In constitution 
            - agreed upon by everyone? 
            - comprehensive system with checks and balances to make sure that the sterilisation is done to the right people in a humane and proper way.
            - people with lower intelligences should not be judged and should be treated in the best possible way just like everyone else. its just that we dont want them to influence the gene pool. similar like we would treat someone with a communicable disease.
        - would selecting for intelligence lead to possible negative effects and unforeseen consequences? 
            - what about empathy, creativity and emotional intelligence.  
                - darwinian selection wasnt really selcting for those things.... 
        - assumption regarding intelligence leading to a better society
            - I think this is a valid assumption but i guess i could back it up more

[SwiftQuill]

@Juns You seriously don't see how it's pretty messed up to advocate for eugenics?

[Juns]

Just now, SwiftQuill said:

@Juns You seriously don't see how it's pretty messed up to advocate for eugenics?

I'm not advocating for it. this is just something I've thought about. advocating would be if i was sure about it and wanted to promote it and convince others. 

I know that eugenics is controversial but that doesn't mean you should just ignore it and not take it seriously. 

I'm aware of the history of it's implementation at a surface level and I know that much harm has been done in the name of it. 

Eugenics is quite a broad term and it can be used for by people who differing ideas on what constitutes good genes. 

Please be very specific as to why it's pretty messed up. 

[SwiftQuill]

@Juns well for one eugenics is often associated with horrific racist ideas. And to segment people according to their IQ, that's probably even worse than racism.

And the second major flaw in this reasoning is that IQ is not well defined. Yes many psychologists and scientists use IQ as a metric for intelligence, but it's very reductive. You can have a high IQ because fo your mathematics skills, but have a low score on linguistic skills. Whereas another individual might have a lower IQ than you, but overall have a better score in most metrics. Not to mention that IQ isn't an universal metric. If you take an IQ test in the US, in South Africa, and in China, you will very likely obtain different results. Because IQ tests aren't nowhere near as objective as scientists make them out to be.

And why IQ? Why not focus on EQ instead? Why not focus on cognitive development instead? Why IQ specifically? There have been instances in history of individuals with high IQ who committed atrocities.

I just don't see much merit in this topic, not even as a hypothetical.

[Juns]

7 minutes ago, SwiftQuill said:

@Juns well for one eugenics is often associated with horrific racist ideas. And to segment people according to their IQ, that's probably even worse than racism.

And the second major flaw in this reasoning is that IQ is not well defined. Yes many psychologists and scientists use IQ as a metric for intelligence, but it's very reductive. You can have a high IQ because fo your mathematics skills, but have a low score on linguistic skills. Whereas another individual might have a lower IQ than you, but overall have a better score in most metrics. Not to mention that IQ isn't an universal metric. If you take an IQ test in the US, in South Africa, and in China, you will very likely obtain different results. Because IQ tests aren't nowhere near as objective as scientists make them out to be.

And why IQ? Why not focus on EQ instead? Why not focus on cognitive development instead? Why IQ specifically? There have been instances in history of individuals with high IQ who committed atrocities.

I just don't see much merit in this topic, not even as a hypothetical.

I am sympathetic to the race realist view (by the way, I'm not white). It doesn't mean that one is irrationally prejudiced against others who look different, as one cannot know for certain the qualities of an individual using averages. Also, the fact that it is associated with stage red/blue people, who are just ignorantly racist, is not a valid reason for not considering my main points.

Yes, of course, intelligence is multifaceted. However, there is a g factor (general intelligence), and many tests and metrics can be used to try and get a close approximation of it. I know these measures aren't 100% perfect, and I myself don't know too much about all the possible ways of testing for intelligence, but this is something that must be looked into, as dysgenics and the societal decrease in intelligence are serious problems that need to be addressed.

I agree that there are many other important traits needed for a society to flourish, such as conscientiousness, EQ, etc. But, to be frank, intelligence is the main thing that's needed. These other traits are also important and should be looked into too, but I used cognitive intelligence as the example above because it is the most important. Cognitive development is closely linked to intelligence, too, I would say. To move up the stages in Spiral Dynamics, you, of course, need changes in emotions and psychology, but you also need to be cognitively intelligent to properly understand the different stages (yellow). If you want to be scientifically minded and rational (orange), intelligence plays a crucial role.

Of course, high IQ/intelligence doesn't necessarily mean good morals or wisdom; however, it's a necessary but not sufficient condition for a prosperous society. Low intelligence people singing "Kumbaya" won't build a great, prosperous society, even though they may be morally great people. Both are needed, but I think intelligence is much more important, as humans are generally moral by nature, and more intelligent societies tend to be more prosocial.

You not seeing merit in this topic is a valid opinion. However, what is your solution to decreasing intelligence and dysgenics?

 

[SwiftQuill]

@Juns What evidence is there of dysgenics? And I thought the average IQ was rising over the years, not decreasing.

My proposal is to invest in more and higher quality education. Education provides tools for the mind to develop cognitive skills. I think we should:

1 - Improve the education system in first world countries - our education system has changed very little over time. I think we can improve in terms of adjusting the amount and variety of content being taught to students. We can also implement better testing methods (I think exams and tests are they are performed today are very flawed).

2 - Help third world countries develop their education systems - many people in third world countries don't even have access to education. How are we supposed to measure their IQ if they weren't given a change to develop these skills?

Both of these proposals are complex because they need financing and don't provide immediate survival benefit. I don't see businessmen or politicians caring too much about the education system.

And also other reasons why education is important: it correlates with cognitive and moral development as well.

I think this is a much better focus than to prevent low IQ people from procreating or whatever eugenics system you are pondering.

[Juns]

5 minutes ago, SwiftQuill said:

@Juns What evidence is there of dysgenics? And I thought the average IQ was rising over the years, not decreasing.

My proposal is to invest in more and higher quality education. Education provides tools for the mind to develop cognitive skills. I think we should:

1 - Improve the education system in first world countries - our education system has changed very little over time. I think we can improve in terms of adjusting the amount and variety of content being taught to students. We can also implement better testing methods (I think exams and tests are they are performed today are very flawed).

2 - Help third world countries develop their education systems - many people in third world countries don't even have access to education. How are we supposed to measure their IQ if they weren't given a change to develop these skills?

Both of these proposals are complex because they need financing and don't provide immediate survival benefit. I don't see businessmen or politicians caring too much about the education system.

And also other reasons why education is important: it correlates with cognitive and moral development as well.

I think this is a much better focus than to prevent low IQ people from procreating or whatever eugenics system you are pondering.

I did say this in my original post: "Genetic IQ is decreasing in developed countries, and the Flynn effect only accounts for the environmental maximization of genetic IQ potential."

Education only accounts for maximizing genetic potential. It is extremely important in underdeveloped countries, as their potential IQ is likely much higher than what tests show due to lack of education, nutrition, etc. However, one can ask why they are in those conditions in the first place. Of course, many factors contribute to the development of a country, but intelligence is at the top. 

An example of what I mean by genetic potential is height. You are born with a genetic potential when it comes to your height. If you have good nutrition and max out environmental factors, you will reach that potential. However, you can’t magically go beyond that. You can feed Japanese people all the food in the world, but that won’t make them the same height as the Dutch on average. The Korean peninsula is a good example of this. North Koreans are, on average, much shorter than South Koreans because of nutrition. 

Top-down approaches are important, but it's sometimes a cop-out for considering the actual causes of a problem. 

Do you agree that humans are animals? Do you believe that evolution and natural selection are a thing? Do you not believe that humans developed intelligence because the more intelligent survived and the less intelligent died? What do you think will happen to a society where the more intelligent have fewer children and less intelligent people have more? I’m pretty sure that you have an intuitive understanding of what I mean about genetic intelligence. 

 

[Juns]

By the way, I come from an underdeveloped country myself, and my parents—especially my mother—would score poorly on a written IQ test due to their lack of formal education and other environmental factors. However, their genes are in me, and I am much closer to my genetic IQ potential due to education and environmental factors being somewhat optimized. That said, I would never delude myself into thinking that with better nutrition and better education, my IQ would jump to genius level. I can look at my family, my own IQ test scores, and my general achievements to roughly understand what my potential was.

 

[Juns]

I'd like to think—and forgive me if this sounds pretentious—that this vision of a eugenic state is Stage Yellow and not Blue/Red

 

[Lews Therin]

Why would this be yellow?

[Something Funny]

@Juns it all boils down to how you have no right to have authority over another beings body. There is no point to discuss it any further than that.

[Breakingthewall]

Creating balanced, functional, happy, honest, integral and open individuals does not depend on IQ, it depends on a set of favorable family conditions that are impossible to measure today. Those individuals adds to the society and creates possibilities of development in all senses. Your eugenics would create a country of dysfunctional egomaniac Elon Musks who would self-destruct in two generations.

[Juns]

45 minutes ago, Lews Therin said:

Why would this be yellow?

It's beyond the green idea that any mention of eugenics is immoral. It's beyond the blind acceptance or rejection of racism by blue. I feel as if it is a higher-level ideology that recognizes why others may view it as problematic from their spiral stages, but it is needed due to the net good it would have on society. maybe I'm wrong about it being yellow though. 

[Juns]

28 minutes ago, Something Funny said:

@Juns it all boils down to how you have no right to have authority over another beings body. There is no point to discuss it any further than that.

Yes, I understand where you are coming from here, but it's not that simple. Would you be fine with someone with severe disabilities having children and then causing those children to live lives of immense suffering? What makes you think you even have the right to bring someone into the world and have children in the first place if you want to follow that line of thinking? People are put in prison for crimes, and you do have authority over other people's bodies in specific circumstances. However, since we humans don't want to live like animals, we have laws and change them to try and live in an optimal way where the restrictions and rules placed upon society maximize well-being and freedom.

[Juns]

25 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

Creating balanced, functional, happy, honest, integral and open individuals does not depend on IQ, it depends on a set of favorable family conditions that are impossible to measure today. Those individuals adds to the society and creates possibilities of development in all senses. Your eugenics would create a country of dysfunctional egomaniac Elon Musks who would self-destruct in two generations.

I didn't say that it depends entirely on IQ. 

 

 

26 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

set of favorable family conditions that are impossible to measure today

please elaborate. how do you know what they are if you cant measure them?

 

27 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

Creating balanced, functional, happy, honest, integral and open individuals does not depend on IQ, it depends on a set of favorable family conditions that are impossible to measure today. Those individuals adds to the society and creates possibilities of development in all senses.

As I said, having moral, hardworking, and friendly people is great, but advanced civilizations require high intelligence to create and run. You can't get that from low-intelligence people, no matter how good-natured they are.

 

29 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

Your eugenics would create a country of dysfunctional egomaniac Elon Musks who would self-destruct in two generations.

I guess that is a possibility in some sense, but what is your solution to dysgenics and declining intelligence? I think we need a society to try this out to see if it works. I like the analogy of local and global maxima used in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1p11-oggW1E&pp=ygUqbGliZXJhbHMgdnMgY29uc2V2aWF0ZSBjb21wdXRlciBzaW11bGF0aW9u. I see this idea as an attempt to find the global maximum by going in a different direction.

 

33 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

Your eugenics would create a country of dysfunctional egomaniac Elon Musks who would self-destruct in two generations.

Please explain why this would be the case? why exactly would they be dysfunctional and egomaniacs? l don't particularly like elon musk but I'd say he's much more useful for building a prosperous society than most other people. to use the analogy of tech, hardware(genes) is much more important than software(ideology and beliefs). the software can change much easier than the hardware. I could be wrong about this though. 

[The Crocodile]

You can't control people's lives like that.

[Something Funny]

@Juns what "severe disabilities" it's such a catch phrase. Be specific.

It doesn't matter what I am fine / not fine with because it's not my decision to impose arbitrary reproductive standards onto others. 

6 minutes ago, Juns said:

What makes you think you even have the right to bring someone into the world and have children in the first place if you want to follow that line of thinking?

Because this is literally how life works?

7 minutes ago, Juns said:

People are put in prison for crimes, and you do have authority over other people's bodies in specific circumstances

This is obviously very different. In one case you are acting in self-defence and in another you are just opressing people who have doen nothing wrong, based on your made up ideas about what's best for society.

8 minutes ago, Juns said:

However, since we humans don't want to live like animals, we have laws and change them to try and live in an optimal way where the restrictions and rules placed upon society maximize well-being and freedom.

Exactly. Which is why there are ground rules, like how nobody is allowed to torture you, restrict your reproductive freedoms, and murder you. Society needs to be fair and just for people to want to live in it. Your high IQ wonderland will quickly come to an end when all the "low iq" people will come to your house and murder you and your whole family.

[Something Funny]

4 minutes ago, Juns said:

As I said, having moral, hardworking, and friendly people is great, but advanced civilizations require high intelligence to create and run. You can't get that from low-intelligence people, no matter how good-natured they are.

 

According to who? this is just your pet theory. Do you have any experience running advanced civilizations? Do you know of many hyper advanced alien civilizations and have studied their history to make such claims?

And what makes you think that your measure and definition of the intelligence is the right one and the one that we should follow? There are many different types of intelligence.

[Juns]

9 minutes ago, The Crocodile said:

You can't control people's lives like that.

as I said above, laws and restrictions are agreed upon and created in human societies to maximise well being and freedom and other important things. Once you realise that society is slowly becoming less intelligent and that bad traits are increasing in the genepool you will also realise that this will decrease well being and freedom as the high complexity, advanced society you live in starts to collapse. Then your cherished freedoms start to decrease and your wellbeing too. that's why laws are updated and I believe that this would be a possible update for a new way of running society now that there is no strong natural selection for intelligence. 

 

8 minutes ago, Something Funny said:

@Juns what "severe disabilities" it's such a catch phrase. Be specific.

It doesn't matter what I am fine / not fine with because it's not my decision to impose arbitrary reproductive standards onto others. 

Because this is literally how life works?

This is obviously very different. In one case you are acting in self-defence and in another you are just opressing people who have doen nothing wrong, based on your made up ideas about what's best for society.

Exactly. Which is why there are ground rules, like how nobody is allowed to torture you, restrict your reproductive freedoms, and murder you. Society needs to be fair and just for people to want to live in it. Your high IQ wonderland will quickly come to an end when all the "low iq" people will come to your house and murder you and your whole family.

One example of a severe disability could be someone with severe intellectual and learning disabilities, such that they cannot take care of themselves. Their intelligence and understanding of the world may be that of a child. If they are likely to pass that on to their children, it could lead to suffering for the child and create a lot of strain on those who have to care for them. In my ideal society this disabled person would be given full state support. much more than is given in most developed countries never mind underdeveloped countries. they just wouldn't be able to have children. they could adopt if they were capable of taking care of the children. By the way, I haven't fully bought into this idea, so your asking me these questions is exactly what I want in order to see if it makes sense or not.

 

22 minutes ago, Something Funny said:

It doesn't matter what I am fine / not fine with because it's not my decision to impose arbitrary reproductive standards onto others.

I know what you mean but, Yeah, it's your descion. society makes rules. If all society decided tomorrow that they wanted to follow through with my idea here it would happen. 

A criminal is someone who commits a crime. A crime is something that is decided upon by society. in some countries you could be put in jail for things that you think are totally fine.

 

 

27 minutes ago, Something Funny said:

Because this is literally how life works?

naturalistic fallacy. my point is that you were talking about how you don't have the right to impose things on others  Having children is literly imposing life itself on someone. you are also subjecting them to your opinions and views on reality and making them live with you for at least until adulthood. I'm not saying I think this I was just using it as an example.

 

29 minutes ago, Something Funny said:

Exactly. Which is why there are ground rules, like how nobody is allowed to torture you, restrict your reproductive freedoms, and murder you. Society needs to be fair and just for people to want to live in it. Your high IQ wonderland will quickly come to an end when all the "low iq" people will come to your house and murder you and your whole family.

again the ground rules are created by humans. many societies think that torture and murder and restricting reproductive rights is fine. they probable won't be as successful as ones don't torture and all the others but these laws in some sense are arbitrary and subject to change based on the needs of the time. 

 

 

33 minutes ago, Something Funny said:

Your high IQ wonderland will quickly come to an end when all the "low iq" people will come to your house and murder you and your whole family.

I would easily be killed by a tiger, lion, and a number of other animals in close combat without tools. smart humans build tech and infrastructure to be safe from those animals. those animals are now in zoos(not saying I agree with the way animals are treated in zoos but you get my point).

those IQ people would have access to comprehensive state welfare and would have the ability to adopt if they could take care of the children. since this is just one state they can always leave and live elsewhere if they want to have children. But I doubt they would have a better life elsewhere anyway.

 

33 minutes ago, Something Funny said:

According to who? this is just your pet theory. Do you have any experience running advanced civilizations? Do you know of many hyper advanced alien civilizations and have studied their history to make such claims?

 

What did you think I meant by advanced civilisations, ha ha?

35 minutes ago, Something Funny said:

And what makes you think that your measure and definition of the intelligence is the right one and the one that we should follow? There are many different types of intelligence.

RTFM:
 

 

3 hours ago, Juns said:

Yes, of course, intelligence is multifaceted. However, there is a g factor (general intelligence), and many tests and metrics can be used to try and get a close approximation of it. I know these measures aren't 100% perfect, and I myself don't know too much about all the possible ways of testing for intelligence, but this is something that must be looked into, as dysgenics and the societal decrease in intelligence are serious problems that need to be addressed.

I agree that there are many other important traits needed for a society to flourish, such as conscientiousness, EQ, etc. But, to be frank, intelligence is the main thing that's needed. These other traits are also important and should be looked into too, but I used cognitive intelligence as the example above because it is the most important. Cognitive development is closely linked to intelligence, too, I would say. To move up the stages in Spiral Dynamics, you, of course, need changes in emotions and psychology, but you also need to be cognitively intelligent to properly understand the different stages (yellow). If you want to be scientifically minded and rational (orange), intelligence plays a crucial role.

Of course, high IQ/intelligence doesn't necessarily mean good morals or wisdom; however, it's a necessary but not sufficient condition for a prosperous society. Low intelligence people singing "Kumbaya" won't build a great, prosperous society, even though they may be morally great people. Both are needed, but I think intelligence is much more important, as humans are generally moral by nature, and more intelligent societies tend to be more prosocial.

You not seeing merit in this topic is a valid opinion. However, what is your solution to decreasing intelligence and dysgenics?

 

[The Crocodile]

Just now, Juns said:

Once you realise that society is slowly becoming less intelligent

Is your post supposed to be an example of that?