Hypothesis: Only the elite class should breed.

Post Reply New Topic

The assumption seems to be that one should live one's life entirely at the disposal of the proposed future from one point of view. As far as I've seen, intelligence is only one characteristic of human capability and it has not always resulted in results I would approve. We are each individual animals granted to operate for a specific time before we disappear back into the basic elements of which we are composed. Our existence is made better in some social situations and in others it is made worse. We must each decide as individuals how to use our time and abilities. We are, of course, hedged by our beliefs and inter-relationships and we must each decide as individuals how to manage that. Some do it better than others. I do not see any that any should be granted special rights to terminate the valuable time of life of any others aside from very special individual circumstances. Having extraordinary brains, or a lot of money or simply, a gun, does not justify wiping out anybody else or their descendants. Perhaps I am peculiar in holding those standards.

Sand, as much as I hate to admit it, you're probably right. And it's not peculiar to you. To be honest, I feel the same way.

diversity is a requirement of evolution. inbreeding and the lack of genetic diversity can lead to entire species being wiped out by a pathogen.

the point is really moot anyways, because people of the elite class are inherently quite diverse.

on another note, it seems that people are using the categories 'ruling class', 'elite class' 'rich people' and 'intelligent people' interchangeably, and thy are not the same. i've met plenty of stupid rich people. and i know of some elite nobility with no actual power over the masses.

Maybe they are and maybe they aren't. It all depends on how "elite class" is defined. And in your next post you do point out that everybody seems to have their own private definition of who exactly is in this "elite class".

Perhaps the survival of the species would depend, not on economic or mental ability but on the ability to resist a specific virus which has nothing to do with any particular definition of "elite". Humans are not as bright as they claim to be.

oooh i like that kind of thinking. have you been working on it in the lab again? just kidding!

You didn't even disagree with my point. You bypassed it, as I didn't disregard diversity, I only claimed that not all sources of diversity were equally important, and that removal of genetic diversity also was part of the selection process in evolution.

I am guessing that there is an assumed "elite" group, that is in some sense probabilistically better than the rest. I mean, it isn't necessary that every rich person is smart, but rather what is necessary is that there is a good enough correlation between "eliteness"(which could also rely on elements of social capital, as professors may be elite, but not rich), pro-societal growth genes, and intellectual capital, that the elite are generally a more desirable group to keep around than other broadly defined groups.

Still too vague. "Desirable" to whom for what?

i don't know much about it... just limited, isolated bits and pieces. you may be right.

Umm... how about family planning? Encouraging and helping people to only have children when they are ready for them so that the children can have at least decent childhoods, giving them a much better chance at being successful when they grow up? So many people have children either accidentally or just for the sake of conforming to societal expectations, even though they can't properly provide for their children. As a result, the children grow up with poverty, neglect and/or abuse, their mental and emotional growth are affected, and when they become adults, they start the cycle all over again because they don't know any better or because societal pressures are too strong to resist. If we could just get people to breed responsibly, children would be more likely to get the nurture that they need, allowing them to become at least "elite" enough.

Plus, with your whole eugenics idea, aren't autistic people generally considered "unelite"? Who would decide which genes are good and which ones are bad?

Survival of the elite ---
For your consideration -
Exhibit 1 - the New Denver Airport.
As the story goes, the fuel tanks are too many and too large for just the airport.
Much more underground construction delayed the opening of the Airport, and is not apparent to the casual visitor.
There is a concourse, that casual visitors will be directed away from. The wall murals are disturbing, as is one of the statues on a pedestal.
The rumor is that the underground facility is for the elite and their families, to insure survival of the "government" during "difficult times."

Exhibit 2 - The Masque of the Red Death by E.A. Poe
A noble causes himself and 1000 friends to be sealed in a castle during the plague.
During a costume ball, presented to take their minds off their situation, the costumed Red Death is admitted and kills them all.

Exhibit 3 - The movie - 2012 - (**spoiler warning**)
Wherein solar flares trigger significant earth changes, such as the eruption of the Yellowstone super volcano, polar shift, where the south pole ends up in Wisconsin, and huge tsunamis threaten the survival of humanity.

Exhibit 4 - Evolution - Survival of the fittest. (Define elite as the fittest)
We are all the elite, being the end result of thousands of years of evolution.

In the end, the elite are the last ones standing after it hits the fan.

Desirable as in that these traits may promote greater long-term human flourishing, faster growth in knowledge, or all sorts of other possible things. "Desirable" is kind of meant to be a vague term here given all of the various ethical and/or teleological suppositions one can bring to the table. I mean, tinkering can be used on the part of what is "desirable", but the point may easily be the same regardless of whether we're using a utilitarian framework or a framework involving societal goals.

Humanity does not have to do that. Mother nature already does that for us. It is called natural selection.

How stupid, ignorant people like Hitler pick people for selection is not natural. It actually goes against mother nature and basic human nature.

There is so much genetic diversity that the ultimate "elite" is a diverse, flexible population. We already have that. A "killing" of people with different characteristics would weaken the human race by creating a limited gene pool.

Natural selection is just a term for the fact that less fit organisms die. It isn't something "done for us", and it has increasingly been held at bay by human technology.

Mother nature doesn't care about how people die. Even further, it probably IS actually mother nature. If you just read the Bible, you will see that other genocides are mentioned. Now, it could be that the Jews were particularly bad, but in all likelihood, a lot of people historically commit genocide. It is very unlikely that Hitler was the first, and that all of the many other instances of genocide across the world just spontaneously popped up. Rather, mass-killing is likely deeply human.

Surely you can't say that there is not even a possible improvement in the gene code using an omniscient eugenicist, so let's just say we had one. Then would killing people of different characteristics be justifiable?