Neo-reaction and Human Biodiversity. Are humans equal? - General

It's kind of an unavoidable conclusion to such a view that eugenics or racially based policy will best serve communities/humanity. Saying it shouldn't justify it is just obfuscating the fact that it will.

[QUOTE=Lonestriper;44965233]It's kind of an unavoidable conclusion to such a view that eugenics or racially based policy will best serve communities/humanity. Saying it shouldn't justify it is just obfuscating the fact that it will.[/QUOTE] Eugenics can be practiced regardless of whenever or not people are equal. The point is that research into understanding humans better does not mean you have to treat people like shit. Otherwise, it's worse to pretend that differences don't exist, because then you are just going to end up with a deluded society that keeps trying to do something in the same way and doesn't understand why it won't work.

The thing is that it doesn't matter whether or not humans are equal, but that everybody's needs are accommodated for so everybody can be on the same level. The real problem in posing the question like "are humans equal?" is the "equal" part - in this case, it shouldn't be thought of as equivalency but as difference. Compare: "Are humans equal?" versus "Are humans different?". The first question is dividing and, well, just [i]wrong[/i] in a sense - it rather gives leverage to proponents of racism and classism and other unsavory things. The second question, however, doesn't have that problem. The second question is about diversity, not a hierarchy of the worth of different sorts of people.

[QUOTE=Lonestriper;44965233]It's kind of an unavoidable conclusion to such a view that eugenics or racially based policy will best serve communities/humanity. Saying it shouldn't justify it is just obfuscating the fact that it will.[/QUOTE] Eugenics may be an appealing idea on paper but there are number of fundamental problems with implementing a practical eugenic policy. The most obvious of which is that it is very difficult to isolate exactly which genes to limit and which genes to encourage. When it comes to heritable disease many are carried on recessive genes which would mean for a eugenic policy to be successful not only would those with the heritable disease need to sterilized but also all of those who carry the recessive gene would need to be sterilized. Otherwise very little would be achieved, a disease would simply be temporally controlled. Another major problem is that ever since the human genome has been mapped it has become increasingly apparent that almost all genes have multiple purposes. One cannot simply breed out or encourage individual genes for individual purposes. Adding to this at the current time most psychological disorders and undesirable behaviors are not understood sufficiently on a genetic level to be able to selectively breed them out of existence. Due to the issues raised above the only way a eugenic policy could achieve any degree of success would be by sterilizing anyone who had even recessive genes that could cause undesired traits to be expressed. Even if this only included degenerative disease it would still mean sterilizing millions of people. You could argue that only those who themselves suffer from serious degenerative disease should be sterilized, but I would argue that would be unnecessary as they would be unlikely to breed anyway and that again due to recessive genes this would achieve nothing. I most also say that I imagine few people would be in favor of a eugenic policy if they were the ones to be sterilized. If it became apparent that you and your family held genes that were deemed unsuitable for further propagation would you accept sterilization? I wouldn’t.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;44969454]Eugenics can be practiced regardless of whenever or not people are equal. The point is that research into understanding humans better does not mean you have to treat people like shit. Otherwise, it's worse to pretend that differences don't exist, because then you are just going to end up with a deluded society that keeps trying to do something in the same way and doesn't understand why it won't work.[/QUOTE] I'm not sure how it wont work though, especially considering the neo-reactionary connection between genetic inequality and the somehow broken nature of democracy.

[QUOTE=Lonestriper;44976671]I'm not sure how it wont work though, especially considering the neo-reactionary connection between genetic inequality and the somehow broken nature of democracy.[/QUOTE] Even then, we're still going to have to address their criticisms at one point if we discover some of them to be true if we want to keep going the direction we are.

This isn't tied to a relentless march of progress. They're dredging up arguments that go as far back as Classical Athens and tacking on science to make them seem applicable to our modern age. The only thing that needs to be addressed is what the new scientific discoveries mean in the context of our societies. It seems to me that the differences are so minimal and context specific their importance to the way we conduct ourselves is actually minimal. Functionally they are non-existent in our political society. What are the important social institutions they fear are being destroyed btw?

[QUOTE=Lonestriper;44977294]This isn't tied to a relentless march of progress. They're dredging up arguments that go as far back as Classical Athens and tacking on science to make them seem applicable to our modern age. The only thing that needs to be addressed is what the new scientific discoveries mean in the context of our societies. It seems to me that the differences are so minimal and context specific their importance to the way we conduct ourselves is actually minimal. Functionally they are non-existent in our political society. What are the important social institutions they fear are being destroyed btw?[/QUOTE] The way they usually see it is that small differences magnify. Change the radius of trust even slightly and you end up with a very different society. A bit like this: [img]http://puu.sh/9bKGh/c7b4790a12.jpg[/img] That's more of a modern society. [img]http://puu.sh/9bKJz/6782e3a7bd.jpg[/img] Changes in behaviour can result from simple changes in the society (marriage patterns for instance) that long term could have huge results in matters such as nepotism, corruption, bribery, etc. The things needed to maintain a functioning society could break down.

I wouldn't want to see a neo-reactionary read a history book then, it might be too frightening for their sensibilities.

[QUOTE=Lonestriper;44977374]I wouldn't want to see a neo-reactionary read a history book then, it might be too frightening for their sensibilities.[/QUOTE] An example of a successful African country they can't explain is Botswana.

My word I can only imagine what role nepotism, corruption and bribery would have in their enlightened, oligarchic utopia. e: in reference to those graphs.

Biologically humans are not equal, equality should be used in the sense that all humans should be equal when it comes to their rights. biological samenesss would create more problems than it would solve anyway.

[QUOTE=Ziks;44930434]I can agree that we all deserve equal rights, but are all naturally born humans equally capable? What about those who are born blind, with missing limbs, or with the majority of their cerebral cortex replaced with Cerebrospinal fluid due to a natural mutation? We already have a similar kind of selection for those born to wealthy families compared to people born to critically poor ones. I'll agree that a mixture of horizontal and vertical gene transfer in a society would lead to an even larger economical divide, but what about if it became illegal to have children through vertical gene transfer due to the unfair disadvantage and potentially life threatening genetic disorders it could cause for the child?[/QUOTE] I call survival of the fittest, people do deserve equal rights no doubt, but without the laws and regulations or technology people who are inferior die. My cousin was born prematurely, if that was an animal without the access we have today, she would have died. Anybody who has cancer would die without treatment or maybe their body could flush it out at some point. We are only equal as equal would exist in some type of community, but just to be clear without medical intervention or common sense sometimes people die. people are most certainly not equal in terms of genetics. As for resources that could most certainly play a roll in which region or area would be more dominant regardless of the gene pools. Of course a hearty tribe of warriors who used spears would get slaughtered by a small group of local villagers simply because the villagers had the capacity to smelt metals.