Is Dawkins wrong about eugenics?

[The Man]

We seem to be miscommunicating, because I think you understand my point, but think that I don't, and are trying to communicate to me the same thing that I was trying to communicate to you.

To be more clear, then: When I talked about consistent with, what I really mean is probably compatible with. A hammer doesn't logically preclude the existence of tables. A definition of eugenics that is incompatible with the other things we know about evolutionary biology is a poor definition. There are things we know about how environments interact with genes, and if a definition of eugenics is incompatible with those known facts, then it's a useless definition.

Sure, a definition needs to be self-consistent as well as generally consistent (comparable with the other things we know about evolutionary biology) in order to be useful. Again, I take that simply as a given. As such, when one speaks of being consistent with a definition I generally take that to mean, whatever is being discussed, conforms to that definition. Hence, my question of incorporating the difference mentioned in the definition.

To take it back: you talked about a definition of eugenics in which the goal was some sort of perfect human, and that perfection was based not on genes, but outcome (for instance, being control of the breeding process).

No, specifically a genetically perfect human. As such "that perfection was based" primarily and specifically on genetics. Also note that I don't subscribe to the notion of there even being a genetically perfect human. Hence, by that definition eugenics is generally inconsistent.

How do you gauge the success of any such selective breeding program without the outcome of the genetics combined with the environment?

Let's say you're breeding for long legs and you get offspring with long legs. However, those longer legs can't support the body under normal environmental stresses. Is that a selective breeding success or not? Again it comes back to what the intent of the breeding program was. If it was just for long legs to get say more leg meat, longer bones or other aspects not related to the practical functioning of the legs. Then sure that would be a success.

But that outcome is just as influenced by environmental factors that are outside of the control of the genes as it is by anything else.

That's the sociological aspect and intent of eugenics as repeatably noted by, I think,Cavemonster. As the genetics change so too does that sociological environment.

Again with people as the subject of the selective breeding as well as in control of it, the changes in genetics also influence the environment. Both as the rearing and development environment I've mentioned before but also just the type of environment such beings would live in.

Certainly aspects of environment are outside of human control. However, one of the things that makes us successful as a species is our ability to adapt to differing environments. Both by controlling the environment where we can or mitigating its adverse effects on us where we can't exercise control.

Now certainly selective breeding can produce people better suited to a particular environment but that of course tends to leave them more vulnerable in other environments.

If someone were designing a program to breed the perfect or best human, those environmental factors would not be a useful thing to take into consideration because their breeding program only affects genes, not those environmental factors.

Does that make sense?

Sure it did, but that's why I gave the chicken example before where the genetics of the chicken bred for fast growth and big muscles was incompatible with the normal chicken mating environment. In order to continue to breed that type of chicken that environment would have to change. Where I used artificial insemination as an example of such a change.

I think you are still thinking of this in terms of one population selectively breeding another, even as both being humans. Where the etymological and historical context of eugenics has been selective breeding of people by those people and specifically for obtaining the 'best born' of those people. Sort of like the idea of being noble born before. As such the breeding population would inherently be the controlling population as well, including as much control of the environment as humanly possible.

 

[Roboramma]

Sure, a definition needs to be self-consistent as well as generally consistent (comparable with the other things we know about evolutionary biology) in order to be useful. Again, I take that simply as a given. As such, when one speaks of being consistent with a definition I generally take that to mean, whatever is being discussed, conforms to that definition. Hence, my question of incorporating the difference mentioned in the definition.

Okay, I think we are on the same page here.

No, specifically a genetically perfect human. As such "that perfection was based" primarily and specifically on genetics. Also note that I don't subscribe to the notion of there even being a genetically perfect human. Hence, by that definition eugenics is generally inconsistent.

I agree that the idea of a genetically perfect human doesn't make much sense. But a eugenicist doesn't actually need such a notion, only the notion of a better human.

There is, of course, no objective definition of what's better, but a eugenicist could have a subjective definition of what they considered to be better, and design a breeding program with that outcome in mind.

How do you gauge the success of any such selective breeding program without the outcome of the genetics combined with the environment?

It's possible to have a hypothetical environment in mind without necessarily putting the individuals into that environment. If we were breeding people to live on mars, for instance, we might have to do some research first about what that would entail, but having understood what features to breed for the breeding program itself could potentially take place on earth. You'd have people poorly adapted to life on earth, and thus seemingly your eugenics program would be producing negative outcomes, but the metrics would be based on the idea of living on mars. While actually bringing those people to mars and testing the outcomes would be great, it would also be very expensive and running the program on earth first would still be possible.

Let's say you're breeding for long legs and you get offspring with long legs. However, those longer legs can't support the body under normal environmental stresses. Is that a selective breeding success or not? Again it comes back to what the intent of the breeding program was. If it was just for long legs to get say more leg meat, longer bones or other aspects not related to the practical functioning of the legs. Then sure that would be a success.

Yes, that makes perfect sense. I'm just saying that it is possible to understand the goals of your program without putting the people in that actual environment, particularly during the breeding process.

So, as you say, if all you want is longer legs you may end up with people who can't walk. If you want functional longer legs you're going to have to work with different metrics.

That's the sociological aspect and intent of eugenics as repeatably noted by, I think,Cavemonster. As the genetics change so too does that sociological environment.

Again with people as the subject of the selective breeding as well as in control of it, the changes in genetics also influence the environment. Both as the rearing and development environment I've mentioned before but also just the type of environment such beings would live in.

It's possible to imagine eugenics being done on the population as a whole, including the eugenicists themselves. But my point all along is that it's also possible to imagine a situation in which the eugenicists are practicing selective breeding on a captive population with which they don't mix. As such the non-linear effects you're talking about would no longer be an issue.

 

[The Man]

Okay, I think we are on the same page here.

Great.

I agree that the idea of a genetically perfect human doesn't make much sense. But a eugenicist doesn't actually need such a notion, only the notion of a better human.

There is, of course, no objective definition of what's better, but a eugenicist could have a subjective definition of what they considered to be better, and design a breeding program with that outcome in mind.

Better than what? Its a comparative statement, if one type of human is genetically better than all others then genetically they are the best possible human or as genetically perfect as a human can get at that time. Of course no one actually needs such a notion which is why the notion and the word that was coined for it should simply be allowed to pass into the history of failed notions and their words like the aether or the caloric. The whole concept of eugenics was that there is(are) objectively better lineage(s) to be applied selectively.

It's possible to have a hypothetical environment in mind without necessarily putting the individuals into that environment. If we were breeding people to live on mars, for instance, we might have to do some research first about what that would entail, but having understood what features to breed for the breeding program itself could potentially take place on earth. You'd have people poorly adapted to life on earth, and thus seemingly your eugenics program would be producing negative outcomes, but the metrics would be based on the idea of living on mars. While actually bringing those people to mars and testing the outcomes would be great, it would also be very expensive and running the program on earth first would still be possible.

Sure but that's just breeding specifically for that environment not for the best overall human (however one might choose to regard that).

There is no requirement that a selective breeding program be a eugenics program. People select their mates for various reasons all the time, perhaps even to maintain a cultural or ethnic distinction. Without the precept that such distinction makes them objectively better than others it is technically not eugenics.

If one is in favor of breeding freedom then one can't be against subjective determinations of a better selection in that breeding, while remaining self-consistent. One can however be against claims of an overall objectively better selection as that is not generally consistent either as a personal or community driven selection or as part of a directed selective program.

Yes, that makes perfect sense. I'm just saying that it is possible to understand the goals of your program without putting the people in that actual environment, particularly during the breeding process.

Absolutely but again when the concept itself is fundamentally flawed or generally inconsistent with what we know about genetics the goals of a breeding to a specific environment program are irrelevant as the concept was better or best across all environments.

So, as you say, if all you want is longer legs you may end up with people who can't walk. If you want functional longer legs you're going to have to work with different metrics.

Again that's the thing, inconsistency in the metrics for determining better or best makes the concept itself inconstant with its actual application and thus generally inconsistent.

It's possible to imagine eugenics being done on the population as a whole, including the eugenicists themselves. But my point all along is that it's also possible to imagine a situation in which the eugenicists are practicing selective breeding on a captive population with which they don't mix. As such the non-linear effects you're talking about would no longer be an issue.

It's possible to imagine any word meaning anything you want, but what use does it serve, other than confusion? Particularly when there are much better words to identify what is actually happening. Like selective breeding, applied genetics, genetic testing, genetic screening, directed niche evolution, ect...

Again if your breeding population aren't or can't be in control then they certainly can't be considered better or even equivalent just by that metric.

 

[Roboramma]

The Man, let me attempt to understand your viewpoint a little better.

You are saying that eugenics means breeding for the best human. Since no such thing exists, eugenics is impossible.

It is possible to selectively breed for some specific traits, but there is no scale on which to determine which traits are objectively better than others, and as such a selective breeding program could never be objectively improving human genetics on that scale.

Is that relatively accurate?

If so, I agree with all of that, for the most part. I just find your definition of eugenics relatively narrow. But I think this is just a preference about how we use the word and don't really see the point in arguing over that. Sure, as you define eugenics, it's impossible, because that objective measure doesn't exist.

My main objection is that if someone came along with a selective breeding program for people, for instance attempting to breed for conformity or docility or something, I'd call that eugenics and consider it as horrible as any other idea of eugenics. Could they succeed? Personality traits are at least to some extent heritable and as such I'd expect that a selective breeding program could have some statistical impact on personality traits within a population, so yes, though there would likely be other tag-along affects.

If you don't want to call what they'd be doing eugenics, because it would not be an objective improvement toward some best humans, that's fine. I do think that most people would consider that to be eugenics. I don't see much point in arguing about that though.

 

[HansMustermann]

I don't think most people who thought eugenics were a good idea (which I don't) had "perfect humans" as their primary concern. Not the least because that's not what sells it to idiots.

The eugenics scare story has always been from the polar opposite end. Basically, "OMG, the subhumans will out-breed us and take over the world." If you want an illustration of it, watch Idiocracy. Seriously, it's the EXACT same scare that was waved around in late 1930's Germany, or for that matter what caused people to be sterilized or given an abortion against their will in the USA before Germany ever looked over and thought "no, no, they've got a point." Or what drove legislation against mixed marriages all the way into the 40's in the USA and other places.

The only difference is that Idiocracy stops short of saying, "we should prevent those guys from breeding." I assume because that kind of thing became somewhat of a faux pas after WW2.

That's an idea that sells a lot better, because pretty much everyone is more than willing to believe that they personally are well above average and someone else is the sub-human/retarded/whatever scare. You have guys who'd count as a sandwich if they were any more inbred, who couldn't even finish high school, and with a long history of drug abuse and violent crime convictions, believing that THEY are the master race, and that it's only the over-breeding of blacks/hispanics/jews/guys-from-the-other-state/whatever that is keeping them down.

That sells a lot better than telling them that you need to breed an even more "perfect" human than they are, because obviously even they don't measure up to your standards.

 

[HansMustermann]

Which brings me to why I think that while it can work in theory, it can't ever work in practice. Essentially, yes, if you have a clear goal in mind, you can technically use selective breeding to get closer to that goal. But once you throw into the mix the masses whose approval you need, it's the goal you end up with that's the problem.

To wit, it's less than a century ago that *ahem* someone wanted to breed out jewishness. And I don't even mean a set of genes that are more common in some Jewish group, but basically the religion itself. As if that's flippin' passed genetically.

 

[Darat]

Which brings me to why I think that while it can work in theory, it can't ever work in practice. Essentially, yes, if you have a clear goal in mind, you can technically use selective breeding to get closer to that goal. But once you throw into the mix the masses whose approval you need, it's the goal you end up with that's the problem.

To wit, it's less than a century ago that *ahem* someone wanted to breed out jewishness. And I don't even mean a set of genes that are more common in some Jewish group, but basically the religion itself. As if that's flippin' passed genetically.

No the eugenics of the Nazi's wasn't the killing of the Jews, that was a separate strand of their insanity. Their eugenics was to the removal of the weak, sub standard people as they defined them. So say short arsed, dark-haired people where to be discouraged from breeding, whereas the blonde, blue eyed strapping girls should be dropping sprogs like there was no tomorrow. You can see this was a 100% clear objective criteria by looking at the leaders of Nazi Germany...

 

[HansMustermann]

No, it really was more complicated than that.

Technically the first attempt at eugenics and it really should tell you where the priorities were, was to kill off the mentally defficient. See, Aktion T4. IIRC Adolf even gassed his own cousin because she was a bit retarded.

This, again, was not too far off from the US idea of eugenics. Which is really where the short stache fellow got the idea from. The US didn't quite take it as far as killing people to get them out of the gene pool, but a forced abortion or forced sterilization wasn't off the table. All of Canada, Denmark, Switzerland and the US actually had laws that could get one forced sterilized. All in the name of the same scare as in Idiocracy that if left to its own devices, soon the stupid would breed like rabbits. Having a dictatorship allowed going a bit further with the "so how do we stop that?" solution, but basically the basic scare was the same.

Even in Germany this wasn't exactly a new idea, nor one originating with the Nazis. In fact all that Adolf's T4 did was give the German Society for Racial Hygiene the mandate to do what they had been asking to do since 1905.


The next step was just extending this to literally trying to prevent the Jews from passing on those Jew genes. E.g., by trying to sterilize them with dangerous doses of x-rays.

So, yes, they tried exactly the stupidity I wrote in the previous message.

Also note that this was way before the Wannsee Conference, when they decided to just exterminate the Jews. In fact, it was at a time when the official party line, INCLUDING from the SS, was that Germany would never do something as barbaric as just slaughtering those guys.


The relatively small scale program to try to breed more aryans with blue eyes and blond hair was more like Himmler's own pet project (much as, as you say, one look at him kinda made one wonder), and IIRC never really a part of the eugenics laws or anything.

It often helps to remember that basically there was no such thing as one single brand of nazi insanity. Himmler and Hitler often had wildly different or even opposing ideas. The former actually found himself occasionally mocked by the latter for his outright obsession with nordic aryan superiority.

 

[The Man]

The Man, let me attempt to understand your viewpoint a little better.

You are saying that eugenics means breeding for the best human. Since no such thing exists, eugenics is impossible.

It is possible to selectively breed for some specific traits, but there is no scale on which to determine which traits are objectively better than others, and as such a selective breeding program could never be objectively improving human genetics on that scale.

Is that relatively accurate?

For all intents and purposes, that's basically it.

If so, I agree with all of that, for the most part. I just find your definition of eugenics relatively narrow. But I think this is just a preference about how we use the word and don't really see the point in arguing over that. Sure, as you define eugenics, it's impossible, because that objective measure doesn't exist.

Well, it's not my definition, it's just what the word was coined to mean.

The more rigorous a definition becomes the narrower it is. What exactly is the point in arguing that it should be broader?

My main objection is that if someone came along with a selective breeding program for people, for instance attempting to breed for conformity or docility or something, I'd call that eugenics and consider it as horrible as any other idea of eugenics. Could they succeed? Personality traits are at least to some extent heritable and as such I'd expect that a selective breeding program could have some statistical impact on personality traits within a population, so yes, though there would likely be other tag-along affects.

My main objection, as noted before, is that there is no need to call it eugenics to be morally opposed to such a program. By calling it eugenics and being moral opposed to it on that grounds leaves one open to the simple argument that it is not eugenics. Heck, I'd probably find selectively breeding a sub population of humans for what might be less than desirable traits to be more morally objectionable than trying to selectively breed the entire population for some perhaps unattainable goal of improvement. At least the latter goal is some perception of improvement and applied to the human population as a whole.

If you don't want to call what they'd be doing eugenics, because it would not be an objective improvement toward some best humans, that's fine. I do think that most people would consider that to be eugenics. I don't see much point in arguing about that though.

Not just that it would not be an objective improvement toward some best humans. As mentioned before, that it might miss the more direct moral turpitude in what is actually being done and that it tends to lend credence to supporters of eugenics that does seek to be an objective improvement toward some best humans. While misguided, at least that's an attempt at improvement. The standards are applied across the whole human population, so you don't have people applying standards to others that they wouldn't apply to themselves. With the breeding and controlling populations being the same to set those standards. How far down the redefinition rabbit hole does it have to go when the original meaning of eugenics becomes the less morally objectionable application of the word eugenics?

While I do prefer when we can come to some sort of meeting of the minds. This ain't the first times and likely not the last time we'll might just have to agree to disagree but I think we at least understand each others position better now.

 

[theprestige]

The more rigorous a definition becomes the narrower it is. What exactly is the point in arguing that it should be broader?

Because if you make the definition too narrow, you end up with silliness like:

There is no single objective definition of best human, therefore it's not possible to genetically optimize humans for prevalent conditions or specific goals.

 

[The Man]

Because if you make the definition too narrow, you end up with silliness like:

There is no single objective definition of best human, therefore it's not possible to genetically optimize humans for prevalent conditions or specific goals.

The silliness (or more precisely self-contradiction) of that statement doesn't derive from the definition, narrow or broad. In fact the first part of the statement that "There is no single objective definition of best human" means the latter part "to genetically optimize humans for" certain "prevalent conditions or specific goals" is about all you can try to do.

 

[theprestige]

The silliness (or more precisely self-contradiction) of that statement doesn't derive from the definition, narrow or broad. In fact the first part of the statement that "There is no single objective definition of best human" means the latter part "to genetically optimize humans for" certain "prevalent conditions or specific goals" is about all you can try to do.

I guess I don't understand the nature of your concern. Was somebody claiming that we could use eugenics to get a single objective best human?

 

[HansMustermann]

It seems to me like the more objectionable part is not how you define it, but what it INVOLVES to get there. That tending to be one or more violations of basic human rights.

Honestly, if a group of people decided to only marry others from the same club, would there be anything to object to morally? Be it for racial reasons, or religious, or just some furry dating site where furries only marry other furries. We might think that some ideas behind that particular club are a bit, you know, stupid or delusional or whatever, but you can't really say that letting them apply their own criteria for finding a partner are morally worse than telling them that they CAN'T choose a spouse for stupid reasons. I mean, if I want to only ever marry a redhead, yes, it's racial (there are no black redheads, by virtue of how the MC1R gene works) but do you think it would be the moral high ground to tell me I can't marry one?

But that's not the kind of eugenics that most propose, is it? Because it doesn't solve the "OMG stupid or otherwise inferior people will out-breed us" scare story that sells eugenics, is it? Just saying, "well, then smart people should marry each other; just start a dating site or something" doesn't solve the "yeah, but hillbillies/blacks/muslims/hispanics/asians/whatever will make a dozen children each and will outbreed us!!!!" scare story.

What it ends up involving, to actually even seem like a solution to that scare story, is some way to prevent or discourage those "undesirables" from breeding, or at least from interbreeding with the "desirables". Starting with labelling some of your citizens as undesirable for whatever genetic traits.

And THAT is what is the problem. It's never about wanting some better people, it's always about how many human rights you have to break to prevent the "worse" people from overtaking them anyway. THAT is the problem.

And exactly what definition is waved around as the reason to do that is IMHO rather irrelevant. It's the fact that the proposed solution involves violating human rights.

 

[The Man]

I guess I don't understand the nature of your concern.

I guess not.

Was somebody claiming that we could use eugenics to get a single objective best human?

Racially speaking, yes. The use of selective breeding to improve the "racial quality of future generations" is what the term eugenics was coined to represent.

 

[The Man]

It seems to me like the more objectionable part is not how you define it, but what it INVOLVES to get there. That tending to be one or more violations of basic human rights.

Honestly, if a group of people decided to only marry others from the same club, would there be anything to object to morally? Be it for racial reasons, or religious, or just some furry dating site where furries only marry other furries. We might think that some ideas behind that particular club are a bit, you know, stupid or delusional or whatever, but you can't really say that letting them apply their own criteria for finding a partner are morally worse than telling them that they CAN'T choose a spouse for stupid reasons. I mean, if I want to only ever marry a redhead, yes, it's racial (there are no black redheads, by virtue of how the MC1R gene works) but do you think it would be the moral high ground to tell me I can't marry one?

But that's not the kind of eugenics that most propose, is it? Because it doesn't solve the "OMG stupid or otherwise inferior people will out-breed us" scare story that sells eugenics, is it? Just saying, "well, then smart people should marry each other; just start a dating site or something" doesn't solve the "yeah, but hillbillies/blacks/muslims/hispanics/asians/whatever will make a dozen children each and will outbreed us!!!!" scare story.

What it ends up involving, to actually even seem like a solution to that scare story, is some way to prevent or discourage those "undesirables" from breeding, or at least from interbreeding with the "desirables". Starting with labelling some of your citizens as undesirable for whatever genetic traits.

And THAT is what is the problem. It's never about wanting some better people, it's always about how many human rights you have to break to prevent the "worse" people from overtaking them anyway. THAT is the problem.

And exactly what definition is waved around as the reason to do that is IMHO rather irrelevant. It's the fact that the proposed solution involves violating human rights.

Well, that's the thing, how you define it can determine how you might have to, or might be able to, get there. The result being either a form of eugenics less morally objectionable or one generally morally acceptable. Then even Dawkins assertion of opposing eugenics just on moral grounds starts to fade away

 

[HansMustermann]

Definitions are can be flexed in all sorts of ways. That's the beauty of language.

There's a reason why, as I was saying, eugenics were actually popular and a respected "science" before WW2. Because even the worst of the lot -- e.g., the aforementioned German Society for Racial Hygiene, who not only wanted the retarded sterilized, but was happy to outright kill them when they got permission to -- can wrap it up in all sorts of wonderful phrasing about how they want to improve the human race, bla, bla, bla.

But the point is that while the definition used may or may not already give you some ideas of what you want to do about it, you still actually need a mens rea (evil intent) and an actus reus (evil act) in anything even vaguely resembling the rule of the law. And at the very least to have a moral objection, that intent must include some form of objectionable/detrimental act.

Basically a goal may be to be just as rich as my neighbour, but you don't really have a valid moral objection if I don't intend to go about it in some immoral or illegal way. If my intended means are, say, to steal his identity and empty his bank account, that's objectionable. But if, for example, I just want to go to law school, because he sure seems to make a lot of money as a corporate lawyer, then you don't really have a valid moral objection. Going after what the goal is, or worse yet, after exactly how I define that goal (in this case, exactly how do I define "rich"), is not giving you that crucial distinction.

It also leads into all sorts of tangents that miss the point.

 

[The Man]

Definitions are can be flexed in all sorts of ways. That's the beauty of language.

It is Also its ugly underbelly.

Over in the math, science and tech threads people try to flex definitions till they double over backwards in hopes of supporting their claims.

There's a reason why, as I was saying, eugenics were actually popular and a respected "science" before WW2. Because even the worst of the lot -- e.g., the aforementioned German Society for Racial Hygiene, who not only wanted the retarded sterilized, but was happy to outright kill them when they got permission to -- can wrap it up in all sorts of wonderful phrasing about how they want to improve the human race, bla, bla, bla.

But the point is that while the definition used may or may not already give you some ideas of what you want to do about it, you still actually need a mens rea (evil intent) and an actus reus (evil act) in anything even vaguely resembling the rule of the law. And at the very least to have a moral objection, that intent must include some form of objectionable/detrimental act.

Basically a goal may be to be just as rich as my neighbour, but you don't really have a valid moral objection if I don't intend to go about it in some immoral or illegal way. If my intended means are, say, to steal his identity and empty his bank account, that's objectionable. But if, for example, I just want to go to law school, because he sure seems to make a lot of money as a corporate lawyer, then you don't really have a valid moral objection. Going after what the goal is, or worse yet, after exactly how I define that goal (in this case, exactly how do I define "rich"), is not giving you that crucial distinction.

It also leads into all sorts of tangents that miss the point.

However, the original definition of eugenics does give that crucial distinction as "racial quality". Which imbues a racial prejudice.

 

[theprestige]

I guess not.



Racially speaking, yes. The use of selective breeding to improve the "racial quality of future generations" is what the term eugenics was coined to represent.

It's pretty obvious nobody in this thread is working from that definition.

What is the nature of your concern?

 

[HansMustermann]

However, the original definition of eugenics does give that crucial distinction as "racial quality". Which imbues a racial prejudice.

That is true, mainly because back then racism was mainstream and all the cool kids did it. So there was no real reason to even pretend otherwise. There was no reason to fiddle with the definitions.

But I just gave you examples of actual horrible implementations that could work just as well without even mentioning race. Even Aktion T4 totally didn't have race as a criterion at all. It's one of the few examples where even the actual Nazis were absolutely equal minded about being ass holes. Sterilizing by race only came a little bit later. You could pack the exact same goal as aiming to improve the IQ of the human species, bla, bla, bla.

Do you really want to get stuck against a "why are you against people being smarter?" argument? Because that's what'll happen if you try to argue with the fuzzily defined goal.

Personally I'd rather go:

A) ok, so how do you plan to go about it? Better funding for preschools in the formative years? Even as selective breeding goes, do you plan to raise funds to give extra child support to high IQ parents? Or what? Oh, silly me, of course it's preventing someone else from breeding, isn't it?

B) how do you know who is better or worse for that breeding program? See how long does that talk last before social darwinism rears its ugly head

 

[HansMustermann]

But more to the point, to illustrate the difference between goals and means, I could start from the same premises as back then (or for that matter among a lot of people right now):

A) the poor are stupid, and
B) the stupid should breed less

and come up with something like providing free contraception and abortions for the poor. I'm sure there are quite a few countries out there where that's not the case.

As long as nobody is forced to take the offer, and I manage to shut up about or at least sugar coat my criteria A and B, don't you think you'd have a pretty hard time opposing it on moral grounds? In fact, I'd probably be able to claim the moral high ground right off the bat, and be the hero of pretty much the whole left everywhere. And make no mistakes, it IS an eugenics program.