← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Petr
Thread ID: 19226 | Posts: 28 | Started: 2005-07-20
2005-07-20 08:03 | User Profile
I ran into this piece on Phora In Exile forum, here:
[url]http://niccoloandphora.mywowbb.com/forum8/604.html[/url]
[FONT=Arial]
[COLOR=Indigo]Some quotes I have collected together. . .
[B]Leon Trotsky, in "[I]If America Should go Communist[/I][/B]", wrote:
". . .you Americans, after taking a firm grip on your economic machinery and your culture, will apply genuine scientific methods to the problem of eugenics. Within a century, out of your melting pot of races there will come a new breed of men--the first worthy of the name of Man."
[B]H. J. Miller[/B], an American geneticist and a communist who lived in the Soviet Union in the 1930s, wrote in a letter to Stalin:
". . .geneticists of the political left recognize that only a socialized economic system can provide the material basis and the social and ideological framework necessary for a really sound policy with regard to human genetics, for a policy which will guide human biological evolution along socially desirable lines. They recognize further that sufficient biological knowledge and a sufficiently refined physical technique already exist for the production of very noteworthy results in this field even within the span of our own lifetimes. And they are aware that both the immediate and the ultimate possibilities of a biological kind thus opened up under socialism so far outdistance the biological aims hitherto envisaged by bourgeois theorists as to make the latter appear quite ridiculous. True eugenics can only be a product of socialism, and will, like advances in physical technique, be one of the means used by the latter in the betterment of life. . . .
"It is no idle fantasy that, by a combination of the favorable education and social material advantages which socialism can provide, on the one hand, with the scientific application of genetic knowledge, unhampered by bourgeois social and ideological fetters, on the other hand, it will be possible within only a few generations to bestow the gift even of so-called "genius" upon practically every individual in the population -- in fact, to raise all the masses to the level at which now stand our most gifted individuals, those who are helping most to blaze new trails to life. And even this need be only the beginning. . . .
". . .our science of genetics, with its great potentialities for man, should not remain on the side, but, like other sciences, should take its place dynamically and effectively within the great central stream of socialist development. Thus will the October Revolution have proved to be a turning point not only in social organization, in the development of physical technique and in the conquest of man over inanimate nature, but it will ever be remembered also as the turning point in that long story of biological evolution which, in the past million millennia, has carried life forward so far, and yet so slowly, with so much waste, suffering and false trials. Banishing false gods, man, organized under socialism, must boldly assume the role of creator, conquering with Bolshevik enthusiasm even that most impregnable fortress which holds the key to his own inner being."
[B]Marx & Engels, "[I]The German Ideology", Chap. 3[/I]: [/B]
"He has not the slightest idea that the ability of children to develop depends on the development of their parents and that all this crippling under existing social relations has arisen historically, and in the same way can be abolished again in the course of historical development. Even naturally evolved differences within the species, such as racial differences, etc., which Sancho does not mention at all, can and must be abolished in the course of historical development. Sancho -- who in this connection casts a stealthy glance at zoology and so makes the discovery that "innate limited intellects" form the most numerous class not only among sheep and oxen, but also among polyps and infusoria, which have no heads at all -- has perhaps heard that it is possible to improve races of animals and by cross-breeding to create entirely new, more perfect varieties both for human enjoyment and for their own self-enjoyment.. "Why should not" Sancho be able to draw a conclusion from this in relation to people as well?"
[B]Capital, [I]vol. 3, chapter 47[/I][/B]:
"The possibility is here presented for definite economic development taking place, depending, of course, upon favourable circumstances, inborn racial characteristics, etc."
[B]Engels: ([I]Marx and Engels, Selected Works, Vol. 3, p. 502[/I].): [/B]
"We regard economic conditions as the factor which ultimately determines historical development. But race is itself an economic factor".
Last edited on Sun Jul 17th, 2005 11:31 am by Happy Bill[/FONT][/COLOR]
Then I posted this as a comment:
[COLOR=DarkRed][B][I]Gene Expression[/I] [/B] has a piece on this theme, on how the development of technology has made Lysenkoan doctrines on the superiority of environmental conditioning (nurture, including alteration of genes) over [B]inherited [/B] genes (nature) once again a serious alternative:[/COLOR]
[COLOR=Blue][FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3]"Once we can artificially increase intelligence and change behavior, I predict that three factions will emerge. The first will be a commingling of the far right and the far left. [B]While the far right's embrace of eugenics has been well documented, the far left may appear to be strongly opposed to such a notion. I submit that this is simply an illusion. [/B] Fundamentally, Marxism is committed to the reshaping of man through radical changes in the environment as promulgated by Lysenko. However, such radical changes were never enough to alter the nature of man. [B]As E.O. Wilson famously said in reference to the evolutionary success of ant colonies, "It would appear that socialism really works under some circumstances. Karl Marx just had the wrong species." [/B] It is thus the bulwark of human nature that has served as a barricade against extremism.
"[B][U]In my opinion, the reason that "genetic" is a bad word in universities today is that it is synonymous with "immutable" and is thus anathema to extreme nurturists[/U]. Once genetic engineering is demonstrated to succeed, those who opposed IQ testing and sociobiology out of pique over the "unfairness" of inborn differences will change their positions overnight[/B]. The last barricade will have fallen. Even the human genome will become a potential playground for extremists, and we will have to closely watch their actions."[/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR]
[url]http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/003555.html[/url]
[COLOR=DarkRed]If I have understood correctly, one of the main ideas of original Marxism was that the development of technology ("means of production") in the 19th century had reduced the traditional social structures hopelessly old-fashioned.
Could the genetic technology (on a Frankenstein mode) once again give Marxists an opportunity to proclaim that [B]traditional genetic structures [/B] of man are on their way to the dustbin of history? Genetic neo-Marxism?[/COLOR]
Petr
2005-07-20 09:13 | User Profile
One comment to start with:
In my opinion, the reason that "genetic" is a bad word in universities today is that it is synonymous with "immutable" and is thus anathema to extreme nurturists. "Genetic" is not synonymous with "immutable." Many physical and mental characteristics that are highly influenced by genetic factors -- e.g., muscularity, intelligence, at least some aspects of personality -- are also subject to environmental influences.
It has been proven that proper exercise and diet can make a person stronger, though the maximum limit of one's strength is determined by genetics (and perhaps early environment). Most people could probably become over twice as strong in, say, the bench press as they currently are with proper training.
An analogous situation holds for mental traits. It is known that IQ can be affected to some degree by education and mental exertion (or lack thereof). And a person's personality, which has a strong genetic basis, can be permanently changed by repeated life stresses or other extreme experiences, although the way a person reacts to such experiences is of course determined in large part by genetic factors. In short, the body and brain are malleable to a significant extent.
None of this is to say that eugenics isn't possible. Clearly it is. But it's a mistake to think of genes as "destiny" in every respect. It is with regard to some traits (e.g., eye color). But with more complicated traits there's a highly complex interplay between nature and nurture.
As far as this question,
If I have understood correctly, one of the main ideas of original Marxism was that the development of technology ("means of production") in the 19th century had reduced the traditional social structures hopelessly old-fashioned.
Could the genetic technology (on a Frankenstein mode) once again give Marxists an opportunity to proclaim that traditional genetic structures of man are on their way to the dustbin of history? Genetic neo-Marxism? Well, it's an interesting thought. It's always been my position that the key reason why socialism doesn't work as intended is that it fails to account for human nature. Human beings, to a greater or lesser degree, seek to cooperate with each other, but their first instinctive priority in nearly all cases is to care for their own families (or themselves). Nearly all people, if given the choice, will work harder and be more productive if they and their families are the primary beneficiaries of that work.
Now, if I were a Marxist who wanted to take advantage of modern genetic engineering or eugenics, I wouldn't seek to create stronger or more intelligent humans. Instead, I'd look for a way to eliminate the "family first" instinct mentioned above. The problem with that is instincts are almost certainly highly complex traits involving many genes, and there are probably many pleiotropic relationships involved as well. Thus, if one instinct is eliminated by genetic monkeying, other important instincts might be eliminated as well (e.g., you might end up with people regularly committing suicide or engaging in highly reckless behavior because they lose the "self-preservation" instinct as a side effect). This is all speculation, but the point is that the human genome is not programmable in the same way computers are. So I don't see much chance of success at such a scheme.
If eugenics is ever instituted simply for the purpose of making superior men (more intelligent, stronger, healthier, etc.), then I think it's pretty certain that those men will be well-enough grounded in reality to reject Marxism!
2005-07-20 14:02 | User Profile
[COLOR=DarkGreen][FONT=Arial][B][I] - "If eugenics is ever instituted simply for the purpose of making superior men (more intelligent, stronger, healthier, etc.), then I think it's pretty certain that those men will be well-enough grounded in reality to reject Marxism!"[/I][/B][/FONT][/COLOR]
Don't you think that those Marxist eugenicists couldn't see that one coming and therefore eliminate from their specimen the capacity for independent thought in matters political (or at all) first?
Petr
2005-07-20 14:27 | User Profile
We may have circumvented eugenics in a limited way. Today, pharmaceuticals has promise in making humans more intelligent without waiting for a couple of generations. Wouldn't you rather be more intelligent rather than waiting to see if your grandchildren are? Stem cell research has promised us we can make humans healthier within the span of one lifetime. This has great promise for humans. Finally, eugenics is too unpredictable and slow to be of much value.
2005-07-21 02:05 | User Profile
In my opinion, the reason that "genetic" is a bad word in universities today is that it is synonymous with "immutable" and is thus anathema to extreme nurturists. "Genetic" is not synonymous with "immutable." Many physical and mental characteristics that are highly influenced by genetic factors -- e.g., muscularity, intelligence, at least some aspects of personality -- are also subject to environmental influences.
People believe in many types of determinism. Some in religious determinism, some in fatalistic determinism, some in genetic determinism, some in environmental determinism, and some in economic determinism, but I reject all these theories (though I do believe that there are some genetic tenedencies but not complete control) and believe in self-determinism.
2005-07-21 06:33 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Petr][COLOR=DarkGreen][FONT=Arial][B][I] - "If eugenics is ever instituted simply for the purpose of making superior men (more intelligent, stronger, healthier, etc.), then I think it's pretty certain that those men will be well-enough grounded in reality to reject Marxism!"[/I][/B][/FONT][/COLOR]
Don't you think that those Marxist eugenicists couldn't see that one coming and therefore eliminate from their specimen the capacity for independent thought in matters political (or at all) first?[/QUOTE]That's an issue somewhat similar to the one I touched on about the elimination of the "family first" instinct. I'm not a geneticist, and I'm not sure even experts understand the biological underpinnings of instinctive behavior yet (at least not in humans or other complex animals). But I'd bet my life that there is no isolated gene or even small group of genes that independently determines the extent of a person's instinct toward thinking for himself. If such genes do exist, they could carry other traits as well (pleiotropy), so monkeying with them could cause unintended consequences.
Not only are traits like personality (including the tendency to question and rebel) probably incredibly complex from a genetic/biological standpoint, they're probably affected by factors such as early developmental environment. So while I can't be sure based on what little info I have on the topic, I'm confident that any attempt to use genetic engineering to create a political "sheep" would run into intractable problems.
Eugenics by selective breeding would probably be more successful -- e.g., only allow nonthinking, unquestioning people to breed -- but then they'd probably lose the high intelligence through "regression toward the mean," and they'd also probably get more than a few "questioners" in spite of their efforts. For example, it's not terribly uncommon for a couple of straightlaced parents to give rise to a highly rebellious child. Maybe over many generations they would manage to eliminate such effects and get the population they wanted, but it would be a great deal of trouble for them -- there's little doubt about that. Merely consistently selecting the right individuals for breeding would be a formidable task.
2005-07-24 10:13 | User Profile
ping!
2005-07-24 15:00 | User Profile
Genetics is an antipathy to Marxism. It's an interesting story about the Soviet agriculture and how it suffered because of Communist ideology.
2005-09-10 19:05 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler]If eugenics is ever instituted simply for the purpose of making superior men (more intelligent, stronger, healthier, etc.), then I think it's pretty certain that those men will be well-enough grounded in reality to reject Marxism![/QUOTE] Your faith in reason is again touching, but just as blind as usual. Marxism (together with offshoots) has been advocated by many of the most educated intellectuals in the world. Study after study finds that the people considered most intelligent are often the most left wing. Why would that change?
2005-09-11 00:17 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Hamilton]Your faith in reason is again touching, but just as blind as usual. Marxism (together with offshoots) has been advocated by many of the most educated intellectuals in the world. Study after study finds that the people considered most intelligent are often the most left wing. Why would that change?[/QUOTE] Here's a theory: More nurture than nature.
Why?
In the modern context, the process of education creates the habit of asking questions. The process of indoctrination teaches acceptance of structure. In the past century or two, the process of "education" and inquiry seems to have heavily tilted to "raising questions" in comparison to the indoctrination.
So, "educated folk" are exposed to, thanks to the present process, a series of ideas/ Their native human traint of curiosity and the propensity Man seems to have to try to change things meet, and you see the result.
This board is full of posts commenting on who has been trying to cultivate and feed a certain set of ideas to those undergoing the educational process.
AE
2005-09-11 07:55 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Hamilton]Your faith in reason is again touching, but just as blind as usual. Marxism (together with offshoots) has been advocated by many of the most educated intellectuals in the world. Study after study finds that the people considered most intelligent are often the most left wing. Why would that change?[/QUOTE]First of all, "left wing" is a bit of a vague term. It can mean a variety of things, depending on the context and on who's doing the labeling. For example, many of us right here on this board are opposed to the Iraq war, and that position would be labeled "leftist" by the neocons and much of the current US and world media! At any rate, "leftist" doesn't necessarily imply "Marxist" without further information.
My experience has been that more intelligent people tend to be more civil libertarian than others, and many consider civil libertarianism to be a component of leftism; I personally consider it to be a manifestation of ultra-conservatism that seeks to restore American founding principles. So there are some semantic issues at play here.
Could you perhaps provide a link or two to some information about these studies you're referring to? That would help clear things up. The closest I have come to seeing studies that found "liberals" to be smarter than "conservatives" was focused on religious attitudes:
[url]http://kspark.kaist.ac.kr/Jesus/Intelligence%20&%20religion.htm[/url]
For example:
Thomas Symington, 1935 Tested 400 young people in colleges and church groups. He reported, "There is a constant positive relation in all the groups between liberal religious thinking and mental abilityââ¬Â¦ There is also a constant positive relation between liberal scores and intelligenceââ¬Â¦"
All those studies really say to me, though, is that more intelligent people tend to be more open-minded about a variety of things, including religion. No surprise there. "Open-mindedness" is often associated with what's been called "classical liberalism" (as opposed to big-government, "modern" liberalism), so liberalism and intelligence could be tentatively linked in that sense. Seeing the other person's point of view is something that intelligent people do better than stupid people.
But getting back to Marxism, I would hardly call those people "open-minded." Most of them are just as rigid and intolerant in their thinking as any snake-handling religious fanatic. I seriously doubt their variety of "liberalism" is the type that's associated with intelligence.
2005-09-12 06:53 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler] All those studies really say to me, though, is that more intelligent people tend to be more open-minded about a variety of things, including religion. No surprise there. "Open-mindedness" is often associated with what's been called "classical liberalism" (as opposed to big-government, "modern" liberalism), so liberalism and intelligence could be tentatively linked in that sense. Seeing the other person's point of view is something that intelligent people do better than stupid people. [/QUOTE] The fact that they chose college students for the survey shows that that is exactly who they were looking for, open mindedness. College is a time to explore, you're still young and open minded. Most people when they go to college latch on to new ideas, only to revert back to the ideals they were brought up with when they leave. In otherwords, when they join the "real world" and have to pay taxes, work, worry about kids an parents.
2005-09-30 07:11 | User Profile
Marxism invented political correctness and so Marxism is eternally fluid. All that counts is total power. Lenin quickly realised that Marx's theories would not work in practice and so changed them totally. Lysenko's theories clearly were not working so were dropped. And the Soviet Union did practice Eugenics. They would practice anything to win. And of course given time they would have won. It is a good thing genetic engineering was not invented then. They would have been busilly engineering a super race. They would not have had any ethical consideration about disasters on the way. It would have been like a typical Hollywood Horror Movie with terminator clones mass produced! Keith
2005-09-30 08:46 | User Profile
[FONT=Arial][COLOR=Purple][B][I] - "It would have been like a typical Hollywood Horror Movie with terminator clones mass produced!"[/I][/B][/COLOR][/FONT]
In [I]Lord of the Rings [/I] movies, wizard Saruman uses primitive eugenics to create a dumb, obedient and strong race of Uruk-hai warriors (that can also be quickly and cheaply mass-manufactured).
Petr
2005-10-05 05:18 | User Profile
Dear Petr, it is said that the creator of LoR Tolkein was a fanatical Catholic and that his allegory was purely Christian, however it would seem that Saron was more like Stalin? His clones would have made the perfect Marxists. Perhaps that is what Tolkein had in mind? Keith
2005-10-05 09:31 | User Profile
What's wrong with eugenics anyway? Most arguments against it are emotional and reactionary (just ignore my avatar for a second).
You cannot fool nature. Either we practise eugenics or nature will, eventually.
Involuntarily eugenics should be practised through the penal system (no pun intended) and as an adjunct to the welfare system. It should be kept out of medical system at all costs because of the ethical conflicts involved, IMHO.
There is no good reason why sterilisation shouldn't be mandatory for all murderers, rapists and child molestors. The thought of a convicted rapist being released from prison, then raping a woman and making her pregnant just sickens me. And the child may grow up with a genetic propensity to sex crimes, which makes it all the worse. Sperm/egg samples can be extracted from convicted criminals prior to sterilisation and frozen to cater for the event that their conviction is overturned and they wish to have children.
Violent crime correlates with low-IQ, so I believe all violent offenders should be sterilised on their third offence for assault, armed robbery or grievous bodily harm. Particularly wife-beaters. This will get rid of future generations of violent criminals and also improve the average IQ: two birds with one stone.
As for the whole question of "usurping God's authority", God's sovereignty is not excercised directly. He works only through those that believe in Him. I don't believe in democracy. It's a trite, godless religion. I believe in the divine right of the natural aristocracy among men, to rule over those lesser than themselves. Plato had it right over 2,000 years ago with his piece about "men of gold", "men of silver" and "men of bronze". The men of gold rule, the silvers organise, and the bronzies produce. The lesser "men of iron" get thrown into the smelter.
Why do we need Marxist or any other kind of "social progress" other than that provided by eugenics? Eugenics is the only way human nature CAN change, and hence the only way morality and society can advance. When we have bred a superior form of Man, we can have a perfect (or more perfect) society. Until then we are stuck living in a society proscribed by the limitations of the breeding stock that comprises it, and the attended restrictions on liberty that this entails in order to guarantee stability and order.
2005-10-05 15:21 | User Profile
[QUOTE=RowdyRoddyPiper]What's wrong with eugenics anyway?
It tries to place man on God's divine throne. And that, like all prideful efforts of man, will ultimately lead to disaster and untold human misery. You can take that to the bank.
As for the whole question of "usurping God's authority", God's sovereignty is not excercised directly. He works only through those that believe in Him. [/QUOTE]
Are you sure about that?
2005-10-05 15:39 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]It tries to place man on God's divine throne. And that, like all prideful efforts of man, will ultimately lead to disaster and untold human misery. You can take that to the bank.[/QUOTE] I think the question is whether we are acting lawfully (with reference to the Decalogue) or not in regard to eugenics or any other question.
For example, we know that in times of a just war, all actions - such as murder, theft, lying - are allowed to the extent they are required to achieve the just aim of the war. In fact, in the context of a just war we hold such actions virtuous.
In view of the fact that the Law applies differently in times of peace and times of war, I wonder whether an argument can be made that eugenics is morally permissible in terms of vital national security. After all, if a great foreign power like, say, China launches a eugenics program designed to raise the average Chinese IQ in a couple of generations to 132, and given the very belligerent statements made by responsible Chinese authorities and in view of past Chinese agression against neighboring states, what could we do but respond in kind? The only alternative would be to accept a nearly inevitable serfdom for our descendants.
I think that there's a similar argument in regard to sterilizing blacks. After all, black Americans elect leaders who openly declare their contempt for us and their desire to subvert our institutions to their purposes. Doesn't that in itself weigh in the balance that a stealth sterilization campaign would be, at least arguably, licit?
I hasten to add that I'm NOT making either argument; I merely assert here that such an argument would not be devoid of merit.
I acknowledge that this is a slippery slope, but I think there's an issue there that Christians will have to address or else leave ouselves to the charge of closing our eyes to the harsh realities of this world.
What do you think about that?
2005-10-05 18:25 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]It tries to place man on God's divine throne. And that, like all prideful efforts of man, will ultimately lead to disaster and untold human misery. You can take that to the bank.
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]As for the whole question of "usurping God's authority", God's sovereignty is not excercised directly. He works only through those that believe in Him.[/QUOTE] Are you sure about that?[/QUOTE] Do you support the death penalty? That's eugenics, in effect.
And doesn't giving the state the right to kill criminals "place man on God's divine throne"? If it's OK for the state to kill someone, why object to sterilising them (a rather less severe intrusion into their bodily sovereignty)?
2005-10-05 19:40 | User Profile
Death penalty is decreed in the Law of God, genetic gerrymandering (to which active eugenics - as versus "passive eugenics", weeding out the evildoers - will eventually lead) [B]is not. [/B] What could be more thorough mockery of man as an "Image of God" than taking some "efficient" genes from some animal and planting them on humans?
I admit that sterilising criminals has a nice Biblical touch to it - evildoer's "seed shalll be cut off from the face of the earth..."
Petr
2005-10-05 19:44 | User Profile
[FONT=Arial][COLOR=DarkRed][B][I] - "After all, if a great foreign power like, say, China launches a eugenics program designed to raise the average Chinese IQ in a couple of generations to 132, and given the very belligerent statements made by responsible Chinese authorities and in view of past Chinese agression against neighboring states, what could we do but respond in kind?"[/I][/B][/COLOR][/FONT]
We should have proper faith in God that He will not be mocked, that He will not let pagans get away with anything, that He will instead let a project like that blow back to their faces.
Petr
2005-10-05 19:59 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis] I acknowledge that this is a slippery slope, but I think there's an issue there that Christians will have to address or else leave ouselves to the charge of closing our eyes to the harsh realities of this world.[/QUOTE] I think there is a difference between positive and negative eugenics, or perhaps (if you don't like that term) between breeding and eugenics. Breeding, or positive eugenics, is encouraging the reproduction of those with desirable traits. I don't see any problem with this, and, in fact, I think it is a positive good. If you are strong and healthy, what's wrong with looking for a strong, healthy mate? Who among us would encourage their genius son to marry an unintelligent woman? These shouldn't be the only considerations, but I think it is perfectly moral to take them into account. What is often meant by eugenics, which I am calling 'negative eugenics' means actively keeping the unfit from reproducing, normally by using means such as sterilization, contraception, and abortion. This is the area that is extremely problematic, morally speaking, for any Christian.
2005-10-06 06:32 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill] What is often meant by eugenics, which I am calling 'negative eugenics' means actively keeping the unfit from reproducing, normally by using means such as sterilization, contraception, and abortion. This is the area that is extremely problematic, morally speaking, for any Christian.[/QUOTE] I agree that it's problematic, but the fact remains that a demographic war is raging all around us. Certain key Jewish and black groups in this country have openly slated whites for serfdom and ulimately for replacement.
We can't simply stick our heads in the sand and ignore the fact that we're being attacked. We must at least discuss a measured response.
I think that abortion is far more problematic than sterilization, since abortion destroys an existing life. We should reject abortion entirely, even in these times of covert demographic war. This is targeting the most innocent of civilians and is clearly unacceptable by Christian just war standards.
But obviously sterilization doesn't destroy an existing life, and so that entire dimension is lacking. Also, if a sterilization campaign was exclusively voluntary - relying on positive incentives such as cash payments to induce participation - then the entire coercion element is removed from the equation as well. The victims will have agreed to be sterilized, like Esau selling his birthright for a mess of pottage. Any claim of a violation of individual human rights where the "victim" volunteered for the treatment would certainly lose a good deal of its moral force. Perhaps not all of its moral force, but clearly the moral weight of an argument that a grave injustice was perpetrated against a voluntarily sterilized individual where compensation was already paid would be greatly attenuated.
A stealth sterilization campaign based on volunteerism and positive incentives goes a long way to keep innocent noncombatants safe while protecting core human rights of the individuals involved. Maybe it doesn't go all the way toward making it morally pristine, but it does go a long way in that direction. This is just as it should be, or so it would seem. The demographic war we are fighting, whether we care to admit it or not, is a struggle between contending gene pools. Individual lives should be protected as much as possible, even as the murderous group dynamic is allowed to play itself out.
Given this indisputable demographic war being waged against us, would such a sterilization campaign aimed at blacks and browns really be clearly unjustified? Look at the context within which this discussion is taking place. Europe is being replaced by black and brown Muslim aliens as the direct result of low white birthrates, which were in turn caused to no small extent by a relentless campaign of culture destruction aimed at whites the past 60-odd years by Jews and their allies.
Surely some measures beyond home schooling and natural family planning are on the table here.
I emphasize that I'm really just asking the question here, not arguing the case. The only case I'm arguing now is that we Christians should address the issue squarely and not duck it.
Petr - your response is well taken, but let's face it, that's not exactly going to satisfy our critics outside our camp. We're going to have to explain exactly how the undeclared demographic war being waged against us can be addressed - in terms of very concrete responsive measures - within a traditional Christian framework.
2005-10-06 07:01 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]We're going to have to explain exactly how the undeclared demographic war being waged against us can be addressed - in terms of very concrete responsive measures - within a traditional Christian framework.[/QUOTE]
To my mind it is quite simple, Walter: Genesis 35:11 and Proverbs 22:6.
2005-10-06 07:13 | User Profile
[QUOTE=RowdyRoddyPiper]Do you support the death penalty?
I'm a Texan, brother. What do you think?
That's eugenics, in effect.
I see what you're saying, but I view it much more as a crime and punishment thing.
And doesn't giving the state the right to kill criminals "place man on God's divine throne"?
No, because the state is given its authority by God and that is one of its divinely ordained functions. (Romans 13)
If it's OK for the state to kill someone, why object to sterilising them (a rather less severe intrusion into their bodily sovereignty)?[/QUOTE]
I have no objection to sterilizing criminals, especially sex offenders. They cannot be rehabilitated in my opinion. However, we should not be in the business of sterilizing folks who have committed no crimes to warrant it.
2005-10-06 07:21 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]In view of the fact that the Law applies differently in times of peace and times of war, I wonder whether an argument can be made that eugenics is morally permissible in terms of vital national security. After all, if a great foreign power like, say, China launches a eugenics program designed to raise the average Chinese IQ in a couple of generations to 132, and given the very belligerent statements made by responsible Chinese authorities and in view of past Chinese agression against neighboring states, what could we do but respond in kind? The only alternative would be to accept a nearly inevitable serfdom for our descendants.
I don't think so, Walter. Think of that tower of Babel.
I echo Petr's comment in that if the Chi-coms launched such a program it would invariably blow up in their faces, therefore the best response by our folks would be to encourage them in their futile man-made efforts and grant large tax breaks for babies. Beyond that, we go into battle behind the shield of the Holy Spirit wielding the sword of Christ like Joshua at Jericho.
2005-10-06 10:28 | User Profile
On the "Gene Expression" site, speculating pro-eugenicists are wondering whether the ongoing [B]Christianization of China [/B] could influence the attitude of Chinamen on gene-scrambling:
[url]http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/002522.html[/url]
[FONT=Arial][B]August 04, 2004 [/B]
[SIZE=5]Oops, forgot the Christians! [/SIZE]
In Isaac Asimov's [I]original[/I] Foundation Trilogy, set in a galactic empire thousands of years in the future, computers are prominent in their absence. Fast forward a few decades, and Asimov began to rework his future history with new installments, and all of a sudden, computers show up. What happened here? Asimov admitted that he simply pretended as if they had been in the original works and asked readers not to notice.
Well, as many have observed, [B]science fiction is more often a more accurate representation of the present's [I]perception[/I] of the future than the future itself[/B]. Jules Vernes' fantabulous steam driven contraptions reflect the 19th century, the fission powered futures that were common until the 1960s projected the nuclear-positive mood of the era, while the cybernetic informationally soaked post-human fantasies of the 21st century foreshadow our own dreams and nightmares. This effect can be observed on shorter timescales, Ender's Game & its follow ups depict a [B]near future [/B] where two genius children manipulate world politics through the maelstrom of discussions on the [B]usenet[/B]. Yes, you read that right, usenet. Back in the 1980s Orson Scott Card couldn't have predicted the explosion of the web in 1994 with the arrival of Mosaic. If an author was conceiving an Ender's Gamesque piece of science fiction today, I think it is likely that blogs would loom larger than usenet.
Stepping back into the present, and out of the realms of geekdom, scholars and analysts often articulate "known" truisms and "see" the data out there to validate their propositions. For example, in the early 20th century China was hobbled by an archaic world-view dominated by Confucianism. Chinese nationalists who agitated for change, from liberals to Communists, rejected the old ways. The Cultural Revolution was simply the reductio ad absurdum of this process (though in a peculiar way its emphasis on character over competance might have been a reflection of Confucian moralism!).
Fast forward to the late 20th century, and with the rise of Japan and the "Asian Tigers," "Asian values," with Confucianism being a primary ingredient, received much of the credit for the economic dynamism of the period. During the 1998 "Asian Flu," "Crony Capitalism," undergirded by Confucian emphasis on personal ties of blood, was on the receiving end of much of the blame.
Let us disregard the reality that "Confucianism" means many things (the Japanese for one were somewhat anti-Confucian during much of their history in that loyalty toward their overlords was paramount, even over those of blood). What I want to emphasize is that [B]no one has a time machine [/B] when it comes to social analysis. Falling into [I]ad hoc [/I] storytelling is the human default. Few people make correct predictions, and those who do make correct predictions often can not repeat their prognostication in more than one context, suggesting that blind luck might have been the true source of their wisdom.
This brings me to the terminus of my intellectual circumlocution: on this blog we post many entries about China and its coming revolution in genetic engineering. I myself have engaged in this practice. After all, of the three great civilizations, Western (Christendom & the Dar-al-Islam inclusive), India and China, the first two stand apart from the Han people in their preoccupation with pecularities of principle in defiance of pragmatism. It seems that the South Asian intellectual elite has been far more enthusiastic about arguments based on the "wisdom of repugnance" in attacking genetically modified foods than the Han because this is one way that South Asians (Hindus) resemble the professors of the Abrahamic religions (and their secular children). That is, taboos dictated from On High in defiance of utilitarian gain are more common among the Hindus and the followers of the Abrahamic religions, while the Chinese are often more flexible in following common sense and what "works."
So we have here a proposition that many posters on this blog implicitly assume: [B]The Chinese will have far fewer moral qualms about genetically modifying humans and other living organisms because they tend to view such acts pragmatically rather than sacredly[/B]. But, this presupposes some facts that we know to be true, in particular, that the Chinese are a secular and worldly culture. Yet, it is crucial to reiterate that though this fact is true [B]now[/B], it may not hold in the future.
In the book [I]Jesus in Beijing: How Christianity Is Transforming China and Changing the Global Balance of Power[/I], David Aiken argues that China in the future might be a Christian nation. One can read a review of Aiken's book in [I]Christianity Today[/I]. Having skimmed interviews and seen other summations I am skeptical of the author's arguments for a variety of reasons, but seeing as I haven't read the original text itself, I'll hold back on my critique.
What I want to do though is present the what if: [B]what if 21st century China is a Christian country?[/B] (or at least substantially Christian) Certainly our projections of the coming Chinese genetic revolution might have to change if one assumes that Christianity has within it a consensus set of views on issues relating to life science and human alteration. There are some tests as to whether Christianity would alter the Chinese attitude toward life science: South Korea is 25% Christian & every executive head of state for the past generation has been Christian, the past two being Roman Catholic (half of the [I]religiously affiliated population [/I] is Christian, so the number 50% is often quoted). As late as the 1980s 1/3 of legislators in Singapore's rubber stamp parliament were Christian. The current president of Taiwan is the first in that nation's history not to be a Christian. In contrast, Japan is something of a Christianity-free-zone (in belief and profession if not outward trappings of Christian-themed culture). [B]Is there a difference between nations with strong Christian identities and those without in East Asia in their attitudes toward life sciences and their application to humans?[/B]
I will do some digging later on, but first I'll read Aiken's book to see what arguments in he makes in detail.
[B]Posted by razib at 08:52 PM[/B] [/FONT]
Petr
2005-10-06 11:27 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]To my mind it is quite simple, Walter: Genesis 35:11 and Proverbs 22:6.[/QUOTE]
The Bible also teaches us that paybacks can be a bitch:
[QUOTE]Psalm 137:8 O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy shall he be, that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us. 9Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.[/QUOTE]
And I'm not talking anything nearly that extreme.