Monday, July 26, 2004

Don't vote for James Hart

disclaimer: I received a flyer in the mail, but the flyer was addressed to a previous tenant of this apartment. 

Eugenics is a moral commitment not a racial affiliation and any race that accepted its moral responsibility to protect the right of it's children to be born physically healthy and mentally capable could evolve into and become the next more highly evolved species above homo-sapiens. We are responsible for what our children will be. Our present tax and welfare system is redistributing life support systems away from the capable to the incapable and thus reducing the genetic quality of future generations. We are actually encouraging the least capable members of the human race to reproduce by giving them welfare grants and rewards for bearing more children.
 
Further down...
 
 I will save our cities by stopping welfare and immigration and replacing it with a war on poverty genes, ad nonviolent eugenic program based on individual merit, not group averages.
 
 
and them further down...

Free trade will send your job to Mexico. Do you realize that without unions and tariffs to protect us American workers would still be working for 11 cents a day like a Chinese coolie? It took 100 years of union activity to pass labor laws that require an American factory to pay $5.15 minimum wage and social security. When congress passed the North American Free Trade Act, they threw all that away because they eliminated tariffs on imports from Mexico. After NAFTA American factories could move to Mexico and no longer have to pay a tariff on goods they import to the US. Naturally thousands of our jobs moved to Mexico because once the factories were there, they no longer had to pay social security and the minimum wage is what 30 cents a day.
 
 
At first this guy seems to be a rabid republican who was not really listening to the whole compassionate conservative thing, then he goes on his protectionist rant.  Confusing.

The relativity short hand out that I received only made me very wary of this fellow.  Some of the things he mentioned seemed to me to be in conflict, so I decided to read more.

Eugenics is a moral commitment not a racial affiliation and any "race" that adopted a eugenic program could, given sufficient time, evolve into and become the next more highly evolved species above Homo-Sapiens.
 
High minded vision and a goal, though earlier he had said:
 
Because genes have a more devastating effect on civilization than nuclear bombs, and the reason for Detroit's decline is that there are less 'favored races' in Detroit with an average IQ of 85 and more 'favored races' in Japan with an average IQ of 104. (It is noted there are less 'favored races'* in Africa south of the Sahara with an average IQ of 70-75, which accounts for the extreme poverty there.)
 
He sounds like he wants to make the world a better place by making people smarter, better, and faster.  Even of you are able to make a 100 IQ the very bottom of the IQ curve (that is about average if I remember correctly), the curve will still exist, and hence less "favored races" will always exist.

It is only because of our highly evolved intellectual capacity that we were able to develop the technology to keep these genetically poisoned individuals alive. Ironically, we are using the intellectual capacity that made us great in order to destroy that capacity itself.

Then finally I get to this guys point.

Eugenic techniques like gene splitting and selective breeding are considered good when applied to plants and animals to produce advances in medicine and food production, but should anyone have the temerity to suggest that these eugenic techniques be used to protect our children, he risks being labeled as a Nazi or racist. One actually hears the argument: eugenics is evil because Hitler believed in eugenics. Is everything that Hitler believed in wrong ipso facto because he believed in it. If Galileo had been a mass murderer, would that prove the world vs flat? Eugenics is a moral commitment, not a racial affiliation.

In the end the guy is talking about state sponsored gene clean up programs (or I at least see that as being a possible end result). 

Given the chance to remove harmful genes from my child's life (poor eyesight, birth defects, and tendencies for cancer and heart disease), I would jump on that in a second.  Given the chance to improve my child's genetic cards (ensure a minimum height, high aerobic capaticy, dense bone mass, improved muscle mass, improved reflexs, and minimum IQ), I would jump on that in a second. 

Given a chance for the government to do the above things, I would fight tooth and nail against. I would not support tax breaks for eugenic techniques or forced eugenic techniques.  It should be a personal choice.

cube

2 comments:

Rob said...

I believe in natural eugenics. Lunatics like Hart will eventually remove themselves from the gene pool in a bizarre accident or suicide.

Cubicle said...

I used to belive in natural selection also, until i understood the theory of evolution a bit better.

survial of the fittest in some cases could mean reproducing in the most effiecent manner.

For example if you took two species and the only differene between the two was one had a life span twice as long as the other, the on with the shorter lifespan is the one that reproduces in the most effiecent manner.