You should be able to recognize the quotation without attribution.
How does being less smart than someone else negate the rights that are recognized in the central holding of the Declaration of Independence?
Where did I even imply that I would support any changes to the principles embodies in the Declaration? For the record, I don’t.
I probably wasn’t clear enough. I’ll first try to define what eugenics is, as I understand it. It is the scientific theory that differential breeding between more-fit and less-fit groups of humans will eventually lead to a general decline in the average fitness of the population so affected. It has been expanded in many cases to include recommendations about how to change this situation by “self-direction of human evolution.”
One of Mr. Chrichton’s valid criticisms was that this theory has never been rigorously defined or tested. So, from a purely scientific standpoint, the answer to is to rigorously define and test the theory, not to assume that it is untrue because it has become politically unpopular.
Let us posit that eugenics is indeed rigorously tested, and we find that the basic theory is true. Less-fit people reproducing at a higher rate results in a general decline in the fitness of the population.
I have no idea whether this would actually turn out to be the case. Although, looking at it objectively, there seems to be no logical reason why the laws of natural selection would not apply to humans.
Now what? From here on out, the question of what to do about this situation is not one of science, it is one of philosophy, morality and politics. Science can to some extent predict what the results of various policies might be, but it cannot give any insight on whether policies are moral or ethical. That’s just not what science does, since science by definition is amoral.
FWIW, I would personally oppose any discrimination whatsoever against people because they fit the criteria used to determine who is less fit.
I do, however, think the issue is important enough that it should be studied scientifically. In fact, it is being studied, through numerous studies of genetics and heredity. It just isn’t called eugenics anymore.
BTW, I agree that the racial eugenics of the first half of this century was a bunch of garbage. But there is again no scientific reason that groups of humans who differ on average in height, weight, eye color, skin color, athletic ability, etc.; should not also differ on average in intelligence and other qualities that might be defined as “more fit.”
If we "removed" everyone below plus three sigma on the "bell curve". Tomorrow we would have a whole new "bell curve" and we would have to start all over again. It would get pretty darn lonely real fast. I won't say that the world would be better off with fewer people but it seems as a society climbs away from the subsistence level it's birth rate declines. Perhaps those at the subsistence level have higher birth rates because science has been applied in their behalf to lower the death rate?
I'm betting that eventually the dynamics of population growth and decay will produce a stable overall number (below the current six billion!).
Regards,
GtG
You should be able to recognize the quotation without attribution.
How does being less smart than someone else negate the rights that are recognized in the central holding of the Declaration of Independence?
I recognize the quote without attrition.
And without doubt, I also recognize that when Mr. Jefferson wrote that, he was _not_ referring to all men of everywhere in the world, but from the perspective that "all men" meant all the men of the known civilized world.
- John