Whoa! 2,200+ words.

Bit of a throw away "How oxymoronic can it be for military research to be provided with almost bottomless funding to develop wired-up soldiers and robot warriors that can replace live ones - while ordinary human beings remain stupid. Where can we find super-intelligence being devoted to no more war?"

Examples? Comparison of costs of "wired-up soldiers" research with pet food, cosmetics and the fat and stupid?

Note vast number of health and medical spinoffs-benefits from so-labelled "wired-up soldiers" research.

'Eugenics' was the name invented by Francis Galton for the aim of making the next generations 'better' than the present. Eugenics meant "Well-born, or born well, the science of improving offspring". Dysgenics meant "Messing up eugenics to increase the suffering in the world" (My definition).

My theory of moral relativity:- dysgenics = left wing religion breeding each successive generation to be progressively worse than the last.

Wikipedia has a more accurate definition of eugenics:
"Eugenics is a set of beliefs and practices which aims at improving the genetic quality of the human population. It is a social philosophy advocating the improvement of human genetic traits through the promotion of higher rates of sexual reproduction for people with desired traits (positive eugenics), or reduced rates of sexual reproduction and sterilization of people with less-desired or undesired traits (negative eugenics), or both."

There are two good reasons why we don't need eugenics:

Relying on genetics to do what could instead be done with technology would set us back thousands of years.

And as people gain the ability to hack DNA, human genetics can be improved without selective breeding.

So forget trying to impose restrictions on our right to reproduce – we don't need them and in the long term they won't improve the human population anyway.

I detest it when I see "putting a knife in someones spine and then making fun of them for being handicapped" tactics like I read in this article.

Let me explain.
When the rich go into other peoples countries and exploit, destabilize and turn them into hellhole third world nations incapable of getting their acts together, then blame them for their rate of reproduction, and then try to take away my right to have kids on the back of their endeavours it makes me mad.

I don't like it when you say that some unfit mothers and druggies should not be allowed to reproduce.
I understand your logic, but its an idiots logic.

Its BS and you know why?
OUR SOCIETY CREATES THESE PEOPLE ON PURPOSE.
Pays them to spread their legs and supports them for life.
Creates 'serfs' so that the 'rich' can get dollar for dollar super contributions.

Oh yes we're all about equality as a concept but truly entertaining the idea is so far removed from reality I think people have lost their marbles.

Ghetto creates Ghetto, The rich need the poor because they wont send their kids to fight the wars they start and they need someone to clean their toilets and empty their rubbish.

And THAT is the reason why only SOME kids go to university to eventually wear suits, and others do the real work.

Instead of focussing on transhumanism what you should be focussing on is what has already been lost.

Its called 'personal responsibility' and they don't teach it anymore.

Stop messing with the food, the animals, and our DNA.

And another thing...

These 'elites' think they are more intelligent than anyone else, but really they're not.
They don't work harder than anyone else, all they do is focus their money and power on exploiting others to increase their already existing wealth.
That doesn't make them any more righteous to push their beliefs onto others.

Forcing us into a global one-child policy will only serve to consolidate these elite families power and wealth against people and families who don't have it.

Oh and BTW...
Quote "The humans who tend animals that we eat for our food..."

They're not humans, they're people.

And they get themselves covered in animal excrement on a daily basis so you can have what you want on your plate, and that is about as honourable as any job.

And... I might add many of them commit suicide because our government wont support them or their industries in times of hardship.

They're people, don't insult them.

Aidan, selective breeding is a less polite way of saying arranged marriage which used to work quite well for most white Europeans about 300 years ago.

So forget trying to impose restrictions on our right to improve the human population so our children can have better lives.

Armchair Critic, i hear where you are coming from but 2 wrongs don't make a right. we need to address ALL issues you raised, so that the middle classes can deal decently with both the upper & lower classes.

imacentristmoderate,

"Aidan, selective breeding is a less polite way of saying arranged marriage which used to work quite well for most white Europeans about 300 years ago."
NO IT ISN'T!

Arranged marriage was nearly always done for reasons unrelated to genetic traits.

"So forget trying to impose restrictions on our right to improve the human population so our children can have better lives."
That's a right you don't have because it impinges on the rights of others. And (as I have explained) it would be ineffective at giving our children better lives anyway. Technology makes eugenics obsolete.

This article tries to paint a benign picture of eugenics i.e. it's about improvement of people, but it doesn't state who decides, or is the writer simply naive?

Like those supporting eugenics, the later fertility management or family planning seems all fine, but it's not about pro-life vs pro-choice but a class issue, who gets to choose?

Eugenics was of course identified with and as being created by Nazis, but the roots and science originally came from US (and UK), with US magnates leading the way:

'The Horrifying American Roots of Nazi Eugenics'..... But the concept of a white, blond-haired, blue-eyed master Nordic race didn't originate with Hitler. The idea was created in the United States, and cultivated in California, decades before Hitler came to power. California eugenicists played an important, although little known, role in the American eugenics movement's campaign for ethnic cleansing.

Eugenics was the racist pseudoscience determined to wipe away all human beings deemed "unfit," preserving only those who conformed to a Nordic stereotype. Elements of the philosophy were enshrined as national policy by forced sterilization and segregation laws, as well as marriage restrictions, enacted in twenty-seven states. In 1909, California became the third state to adopt such laws. Ultimately, eugenics practitioners coercively sterilized some 60,000 Americans, barred the marriage of thousands, forcibly segregated thousands in "colonies," and persecuted untold numbers in ways we are just learning. Before World War II, nearly half of coercive sterilizations were done in California, and even after the war, the state accounted for a third of all such surgeries.' http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/1796

Not unlike the population growth movement, masquerading as concerned environmentalists for humanity.....

"Aidan, selective breeding is a less polite way of saying arranged marriage which used to work quite well for most white Europeans about 300 years ago."
YES IT IS!

"Why Marriages Fail Today" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ct3w-OTg-BE

Take royals, senior aristocrats off the table & everybody else doing arranged marriage was nearly always doing it for reasons directly related to genetic traits.

"The History of Eugenics & Everything "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWSx46u1q0I

"So forget trying to impose restrictions on our right to improve the human population so our children can have better lives."
That's a right you do have, because it is about protecting your daughters from dead beat husbands. And (as I have explained) it would be very effective at giving our children better lives in every way.

Technology does NOT make eugenics obsolete because it is not here yet & it will take at least a century to prove it is safe.

Q, would you like to be reasonable with moderates like myself, or promote a more robust approach from extremists?

Andras Smith, yes leftists always have been evil, but that is not what the article is talking about which is the opposite of Eugenics, namely paying people with genetic defects to breed prolifically & should we be more sensible?

imacenteristmoderate,

Moderates like yourself? I can't imagine any real moderates being anything like you. I thought your name was deliberately ironic – now I wonder if you also consider yourself a centrist despite all your silly anti-left rants?

Links to propaganda videos don't really help your case.

"That's a right you do have, because it is about protecting your daughters from dead beat husbands. And (as I have explained) it would be very effective at giving our children better lives in every way."
Firstly, deadbeat husbands are often like that for reasons other than genetics. Secondly its effectiveness would be virtually zero. And thirdly, when your children grow up your right to protect them is superseded by their right to make their own decisions.

Genetic improvement is a very slow process. Even if technological intervention takes a century to prove it's safe, and even if nobody tries it before it's proved safe (which is less likely), that's still very fast compared to the natural rate of change.

Meanwhile, ignoring compassion and instead relying on genetics would set us back millennia!