Hypothesis: Only the elite class should breed.

Post Reply New Topic

^ Exactly.

It is pretty ironic.

Also, people who think that a species is strengthened by limiting its genetic diversity don't know much about genetics.

Actually, wouldn't that be partially a matter of degree? After all, evolutionary processes are complex, but don't they partially work by removing certain differences to promote other genes? Certainly, while uniformity is bad, it does not follow that any source of diversity is good.

Class is such an obtuse way of laying out the various strata's of a society.

Is that relevant?
1) No forum is homogeneous. The objection you bring up is basically "Hey, I saw one conservative thread, and now I see a LIBERAL thread??? What kind of crazy forum is this???" People within a forum can disagree.
2) That may be true that we are outnumbered, but isn't there a real question on whether AS is really a disease to be eliminated or an acceptable difference, or anything else like that? I mean, I certainly oppose the emotive assertion "AS is ok, because I or somebody I know about has AS". That makes very little sense to me.

Well, the notion of "elite" would break down somewhat. The class structure of society within the elites would have to begin to develop. This does not refute our OP's point. There are two things that may be true:
1) The elite may actually have genetic potential that is better than the non-elite for purposes in promoting the success of society. Our society does tend to require certain personality characteristics and abilities more than others, and if the elite were the new breeding stock, they might have more of these essential traits. This is not to say that we lose nothing by only replacing our population with one of "elite genes", only that it could work out better given desires for our society.
2) The elite does have more human capital than the non-elite. So, while some people would have to use their resources less efficiently, it is still better killing off the non-elite than the elite all else equal because if we kill off an elite, we lose capital.

Even further, if overpopulation is a problem, then there is a question of how to reduce the population. It seems ideal that the elite be more spared from the reduction than the poor. Wealth would be more equally distributed if there were less poor-people. Incomes would be more equal if a higher percent of the population had more opportunities. Those are real concerns. This is not to agree with the OP, but this is to address the idea.

All types are needed, to make up a world. We are a busy species with many different things to do. As far as I have seen of the human Elite, their main contribution seems to be networking, sailing around on yachts, eating gourmet food, and keeping the money within a certain group of people. I would prefer to have a mix of people in the world. if we all did not spin or toil there would be nothing to eat, and then even the Elite would be starving.

Anyway, some of the Elite are old money, but many are just lucky, ordinary people who perhaps had one good idea, or had good sales skills... it would still be some pretty ordinary genes being distributed.

If an alien came down to earth they would probably think that the best bred humans were the ones who were the toughest and the most resilient, and they would probably choose a tribe living in the mountains of Pakistan, or perhaps Mongolians, or an African desert tribe surviving on little water. Not a group of people who live in luxury and have faced few of the physical challenges that Nature can come up with.

No, that's a total oversimplification of my argument. Of course the forum isn't homogeneous. My objection had nothing to do with the ideological disparity between different people on this forum, but rather the brazenness with which certain people can claim eugenics (or even mass murder) to have merit, even when faced with evidence that they themselves are being victimized by people with eugenic intent. Does this not seem like a contradiction, and a major conflict of our interests?



And I oppose the assertion that AS somehow isn't OK, or that I'm diseased and need to be cured. And I'd rather be allowed to live and let live, and to make my own choices in life without someone else telling me I'm incapable because I have AS. These are my personal opinions, and you may have your own. But if I were to take the stance that my own personal freedom, to live my life without persecution for who I am, is important, without acknowledging the same to be just as true for everyone else when viewed from their own eyes, that would make me a hypocrite (and in my view, antisocial and morally objectionable). And eugenics, as the OP proposed, is a form of persecution and suppression of personal freedoms. Just because I am essentially empathically blind in my real-world social interactions, it does not mean that I completely lack any sense of ethical responsibility to refrain from discriminating against or encroaching on other people.

If you'd like to advocate for your own forced celibacy and/or elimination (or, in all seriousness, if you honestly would like to rid yourself of AS), you go right ahead. But you don't speak for all autistics or Aspies anymore than I do. I'm not saying there is no question what autism really is. But regardless, I see way too many ways for this talk of eugenics to backfire on us for me to not find the discussion absurd.

On

and




I think these problems solve each other.

Actually, McTell, certain Scots Clans do have that in their background.

As for elites, any of us on the AS would not be considered elites by the NTs, no matter how elite we thought we were.

Who are the elite in Somalia? Note, they didn't kill off the workers, but they are demonstrating to the rest of the world what a country can do without a government.

Cambodia, on the other hand, tried to kill off all the elites, in the 70s.
Who were the elites? Those who wore glasses. Those who taught others.
Those who could read. Those who questioned authority.

It would appear from the historical records, that a country that expels it's rebels or criminals or malcontents risks losing it's drive, it's vitality, while the place they are dumped becomes a thriving, evolving, innovative place. For example England exported it's social unfit to the US, and then to Australia. --- OK, well I should get half a point, anyway.

Last edited by rchamberlin on 24 Sep 2010, 11:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.

If you don't mind me asking, do you have any sources for this? (not because I doubt you, but it would be interesting to read about since I haven't heard anything about that sort of thing happening except in the legend of Sawney Bean).

I just tried to find my Scottish Horror Stories, but it's not immediately visible in my library.
I did find a copy of 50 Great Tales of Terror edited by John Canning.

On page 99 of the same, is the story of The People Eaters, the story of the Sawney Beane "family".
Of which you are familiar.

According to Wikiepedia, there are several others:

Christie-Cleek of the Grampians,
and Tristicloke which may be the same.

However, Sawney was the one I was thinking of with my comment.
I'm half Scot - on my Mother's side.

Very astute of you to put the two posts together the way you did.
Well done indeed.

It doesn't seem like an unfair simplification though. There is no contradiction. There is no necessary notion of "interests". A lot of people are interested in ideas and other such things.


No, I am not advocating anything, except that we take more opinions seriously. The pro-eugenics side is very opposed here, and I think that it needs a bit more attention.

Funny! But no, using contraceptives doesn't make you or define you as smart. All I'm saying is it's generally the smart people who are using contraceptives, hence a higher proportion of less intelligent, maybe even outright stupid, people who are multiplying like rabbits.

And by the same logic the stupid people are easily lead into all sorts of dumb nonsense, make terrible mistakes, do not take care of themselves properly and die in greater quantities. In general, as bad as human intellect may be, it is quite a bit advanced over most other forms of life and by the logic of killing all things stupid every form of life dumber than humans should be exterminated. Especially rabbits.

Very true. And I'm not advocating that stupid people should be killed, either. I'm just saying that perhaps a reversal in attitudes towards consistently using contraceptives might be a better way of peacefully limiting the proliferation of stupid people as opposed to the smart ones.