Honour is Loyalty | Forum

Topic location: Forum home » Main Forum » Politics
XiaoGui17
XiaoGui17 Nov 7 '13
Quote from jack_macleod The majority of abortions are performed for reasons of convenience, such as delaying childbearing, relationship problems, youth of the mother, disruption of education or career, etc.  It would be absurd to call that a eugenics program.

I'm not saying that all abortions that are currently performed constitute eugenics.  What I'm saying is that this has potential.


You talk about "forced sterilization," but the simple fact of the matter is that there are a great many of these women that would eagerly get sterilized or to have an abortion, if only they had the money.  I know because I work with them, and helping them afford it is part of what I do.

Why force people to do something that they would do anyway if they could afford it?  Seems kind of pointless.  What's next--forcing homeless people to take a bath?


As for abortions performed for "reasons of convenience," even if the undesirable trait is not "genetic," per se, there's still the argument to be made that the offspring would be less desirable for environmental factors.  A child is unlikely to turn out ideally if his mother is in a volatile relationship with an alcoholic man, or is 14 years old, or doesn't have the time to invest in childcare because she's busy with school (which could very easily lead to poverty), etc.


Mothers who delay childbearing until later in life typically have more intelligent and successful offspring.  Whether it's technically eugenics or not, it's achieving the same end goal.

SIN_JONES
SIN_JONES Nov 7 '13
PennyRoyal is cheap, there's a mixture of herbs than can induce miscarriage.  It carries a risk to the mother but no more risk than getting an abortion.


Using abortion as a Eugenics program, often times the creme of the crop in genetics comes from the worst possible gene pool.  


Take any group of people that are considered abhorrent to a society, the Gypsies is one I can think of off hand.  If you encourage voluntary abortion all it really does is deplete the population over a span of time.  It doesn't curb the immediate problem.  This is why many advocate for genocide in favor of an option like this.  Killing off the future generation doesn't exactly deal with the population in an area here and now.





XiaoGui17
XiaoGui17 Nov 8 '13
Quote from jack_macleod As an aside, the vision of the founders of planned parenthood was a reduction in the surplus minority population.  How far they've gone astray under the guidance of a more liberal ideology.

That's pro-life propaganda.  I wouldn't really care if those were its origins (goodness knows we've gotten some useful research from Nazis), but it simply ain't true.  Nowadays, the most effective way to try to discredit someone is to point your finger and shriek, "RACISM!", and pro-lifers decided if liberals could do it, they could do it right back.  Sanger was into eugenics, but she was concerned with things like retardation, birth defects, etc. instead of race.


I like many of the changes to PP.  For instance, as I noted, Sanger was pro-life.  I'm glad they changed their mind on that.  As for abandoning the notion of eugenics, I'm not sure the practical result is all that different.


I'm not convinced that "more direction" would necessarily be better.  It seems to me there are far too many factors that nature accounts for that a directed effort cannot.  Take, for instance, the fact that certain "debilitating" genetic conditions can often pose an advantage in certain contexts, or that how much an individual human may personally value a particular trait may not align with that trait's overall ability to serve a common interest.  A natural system can account for all these factors.


Directed evolution sounds like a directed economy, to me.  It sounds great in theory, but the issue is just too complex for a single person to competently take the reins.  There are too many factors for any one conductor to orchestrate the entire process.

The Forum post is edited by XiaoGui17 Nov 8 '13
XiaoGui17
XiaoGui17 Oct 3
Wow, what a blast from the past. Nostalgia city.


P.S. The title of this thread is very misleading. Yes, honour (silly limey spelling) is loyalty. With that, I agree.


I thought I'd changed a lot over the years, but I still feel the same about fascism as I did four years ago. The state, at its very best, comes up with a shoddy knock-off of what decentralized, grassroots forces can achieve.

Entropic
Entropic Oct 4
"There are too many factors for any one conductor to orchestrate the entire process."

What if that conductor were a super powerful AI.
XiaoGui17
XiaoGui17 Oct 14

Quote from Entropic "There are too many factors for any one conductor to orchestrate the entire process."

What if that conductor were a super powerful AI.


What is it with you and AI? It's like me and my baby killing or Mr Scare and his jooooos.


Still skeptical, but if you have an AI Führer to propose, I'll let him have a controlled test run and see how he does. 


Entropic
Entropic Oct 14

Quote from XiaoGui17
Quote from Entropic "There are too many factors for any one conductor to orchestrate the entire process."

What if that conductor were a super powerful AI.


What is it with you and AI? It's like me and my baby killing or Mr Scare and his jooooos.


Still skeptical, but if you have an AI Führer to propose, I'll let him have a controlled test run and see how he does. 



Well, it would be more akin to a god than a Führer, but yeah I am leading up to something I've been thinking about for a little while.
The Forum post is edited by Entropic Oct 14
SIN_JONES
SIN_JONES Oct 15
AI is in play now.  It's only a social influence concern right now but for many; it is God and gospel.  That influence is passed along to people in their sphere, so it is also a contagion.  In spite of this, we persist.
Pages: « 1 2 3

Issue Reporting

Report any issues to satanhimself@circleofdescent.com. He may, or may not, get back to you in a timely manner.