In order to survive, to fight the fire, to save lives, and to do it in as quick and effective manner as possible, certain minimum qualifications must be met.

But in New York City, the decision has been made to relax the requirements. Why?

“JohnD as usual distorts history to try and prove his point.”

Many of Australia’s new immigrants were not only criminals, but they were genocidal colonialists. Hunting down Australia’s existing inhabitants like animals didn’t demonstrate their ‘good blood’ as you would have it.

Which still doesn’t adress my main point: that criminality among black people in America today has probably got nothing at all to do with them having your ‘evil white slave-owners blood’ (TM) in them. If it has, where is the evidence? You made a very strong proposition without any supporting evidence. In my book that amounts to disinformation/propaganda.

Have you any proof that modern Germans are genocidal? The Natiion of Germany only a couple of generations ago enslaved and killed millions of people. Surely by your reckoning, white Germans today must be complete criminals. Or is it only black people that can catch this ‘evil blood’?

I have a friend who is a fireman. After getting in, there are tests to get to the upper levels, such as lt., captain, and above. That test relies on experience in the field.

My friend is stationed in an area with older homes. When they get fires, the fires get out of hand quickly because of the age of the buildings and the associated lack of building codes to prevent fires from spreading.

His station was taking a lot of criticism because fires serviced by the station tended to quickly go to multiple alarms. The upper brass was forced to investigate, meanwhile, white fire fighters from other stations were rotated in, and the fire fighters stationed in the hosue, were rotated out. The goal was to bring in new fire fighters to teach them “how to fight fires” in their area while showing the fireman rotated out how fire fighting is done.

The end result?

My friend’s station was deemed to be a good fire house. This was backed up by the fire men who rotated in.

Remember the older homes I mentioned? That was THE factor for fires quickly becoming multiple alarmers.

Of course, until the final report, it was said that the reason was the Black fireman at the station didn’t know what they were doing.

I should mention that those fireman who were supposed to teach them what to do, were actually taught. From what I’m told, everyone who got to fight a fire, realized what the deal was after entering a building roaches and rats were running out of.

I don’t believe in this kind of affirmative action (where everything is dumbed down). In fact, I don’t believe in affirmative action in employment at all really.

But I do support some forms of affirmative action…such as more efforts by colleges/Universities to recruit/assist minority students…or to provide more access and opportunity for education.

this is dangerous for everyone…

Thanks for your considered response, I will agree to disagree on what I perceive as a narrowing of the definition of eugenics, although I do agree with you that much of China cannot be considered ‘developed society’.

When people from China turn to scientists to select the sex of their future baby, I consider this to fall under the term ‘eugenics’ as it is literally controlled selective breeding using science. Futhermore if the Chinese come to America to achieve this for a price, then it seems to me that eugenics is being practiced for profit in America.

The terms ‘positive’ eugenics and ‘negative’ eugenics exist, one is to ‘bring up the good’ and the other to ‘eliminate the bad’. I believe China practices both of these.

To go to the ‘root’ of definitions … Galton’s own definition of Eugenics is simply:

“the study of the agencies under social control that improve or impair the racial qualities of future generations either physically or mentally”

http://www.eugenicsarchive.org/html/eugenics/static/images/921.html

I do believe that socially orchestrated birth control and genetic screening etc as per China is a demonstration of eugenics at work, as well as ’slaughter’, as you put it. I also belive that forced sterilization as a matter of social ‘control’ is eugenics.

The modern name for the UK Eugenics Society is:

http://www.galtoninstitute.org.uk/

Still studying as it seems, here in good old Blighty. I believe the modern English term for eugenics is ’social biology’, an understandable attempt to shake off the pesky Nazi image.

No, I don’t think the world has even begun to be ‘done’ with eugenics, whatever definitions of it you or I choose to accept. I don’t aim to persuade you that important elements of China’s breeding programs are eugenic in nature, but you may be interested to read:

http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/000773.html

and

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/198555.stm

Regards,

John

We also have a lot of “standards” which normally do not cross religious lines among the deeply faithful and most marriages remain within the “group” which may include ethnicity, education, value systems, etc.

This is a “norm” and not a part of eugenics.

At some point soon, the “lone” woman will be able to order up a special model baby. That will be a definite form of “eugenics.”

Furthermore, soon it will be possible to order up a list of disease markers on embryos. On demand abortion based on that information will be a form of eugenics.

Eugenic is the opposite of dysgenic. Dysgenic means “biologically defective.”

Your dictionary definitions are a bit strange. Eugenics has a specific component that the definitions you quote strangely understate. Eugenics is finding and promoting the hereditary qualities that improve the breed. Think dog breeders here. Or Hitler’s Aryan Race ambitions. The definitions you cite skirt around the issue by speaking of “controlled selective breeding.” That type of phrasing avoids the point. Eugenics, is a philosophy based on an outcome based application of science. Eugenics breeds up body type, nose shape, hair color, intelligence, size, etc.

China is not a developed nation. China’s entire gross national product is less than the expansion of the US GNP for the past 36 months. It is a huge nation with unimaginable numbers of people who live in abject poverty. What the communist government does among the many tribes of people it mistreats and maltreats is no different than the raging wars between the Hutu’s and the Tutsi’s or what the Islamofascists are doing in Somalia. It is not eugenics. It is pure, unadulterated slaughter. A Chinese couple it permitted one or two children. If each parent was a single child, the couple gets to have two. If either parent had a sibling, they get one. Ignoring the rule is not an act of defiance, it is to invite unimaginable suffering and misery. Chinese prefer males over females, so if their first “only” child is female, they may well kill her and try again. But this is not eugenics.

:-/

I do not believe I use the word too easily. I use it as it is defined:

eu·gen·ics
n.
The study of hereditary improvement of the human race by controlled selective breeding.

**********************************************

Eugenics: Controlled human breeding based on notions of desirable and undesirable genotypes

**********************************************
eugenics

n. (used with a sing. verb)

The study of hereditary improvement of the human race by controlled selective breeding.

**********************************************
Eugenics

1883, coined by Eng. scientist Francis Galton (1822-1911) on analogy of ethics, physics, etc. from Gk. eugenes “well-born, of good stock,” from eu- “good” + genos “birth”

**********************************************

You said:

“Selective child rearing has always been an ethical problem which borders on the cusp of “eugenics.”

Actually, no offense, but selective breeding is the very definition of eugenics. Even the study of it is defined as ‘eugenics’.

Popular association of the word ‘eugenics’ with ‘genocide’ has confused the debate. Maybe that is why you singled out China’s example for exclusion from ‘your’ definition of eugenics? Even though China practices cultural genocide and coercive infanticide against Tibet and others ‘minorities’.

People are misled into thinking it isn’t really ‘eugenics’ as it is called ‘Birth planning’. Bad news for little girls, Tibetans, etc.

The actual physical practice of eugenics can be coercive, voluntary or enforced (involuntary). In China it is a weird mix of all three.

Additionally, China both coerces and enforces Tibetan women to go along with the State’s 1 and 2 child policies, enforcing variously this with fines, rewards, sterilizations, abortions and infaniticide.

In China’s view so called non-Chinese minorities are “less intelligent” and more prone to give birth to handicapped, insane, retarded or dwarfed children. Birth control is encouraged to enhance “population quality”. Ironic that the Nazi ‘Lebensborn’ program (positive eugenics experiments)resulted in higher than normal birth defects.

But thank you for replying to the content of my post in a respectful manner, even though I must disagree entirely with your counter-claim against the reality of eugenics today based upon the evidence you have given. I would of course be interested to hear other definitions of ‘eugenics’ than the one’s quoted from dictionaroes and medical manuals.

Regards,

John.

Tests will measure 5-7 of the available factors and then extrapolate for the remaining to reach the total 23 factors.

Interestingly enough, standardized cognitive (IQ)tests do not use race as a factor. What they do is measure responses against a control group of a representative sample nation-wide. Thus, we do not know how race factors in but we can compare an individual against the likelihood of success.

Since tests are frequently re-normed to include changes in demographics, we cannot compare today’s tests with earlier years tests. So we can’t say, with reasonable certainty, that we are getting smarter or dumber.

Is there any developed nation in 2006 that practices “eugenics”? By that, I mean permits eugenics experimentation or even promotes it.

Selective child rearing has always been an ethical problem which borders on the cusp of “eugenics.” For instance, when tests are made to determine if the embryo has certain characteristics and the test results can lead to a “termination of the pregnancy,” there are those who would say that “eugenics” is in play. However, this type of testing and abortion being so very, very common in the developed world, the procedure has been “exempted” from “eugenics.”

China and India are two countries that are model practitioners of the goals of Planned Parenthood. India, in particular has used the advent of ultrasound to great advantage. They now know if it is a girl in there and the abortion of girls has grown dramatically.

“Eugenics” is a word like “racist.” It should not be used too easily.

If these bombers were indeed second- and third-generation Brits of Pakistani origin, and therefore reasonably assimilated, then their plot and organization falls into the same category as all of the others: Jihad is what it’s about, pure and simple. H…

1. Human genomes among the population by only 0.1% of their total DNA
2. The differences in DNA among different groups is about 85-90% due to differences in continental groups and about 10-15% is variation within that continental group.
3. While their are measurable differences in genetic variation that are useful for some biomedical requirements, they caution that using these techniques to measure variation of genetic information should not be applied to human behavior because of the danger of “simplistic interpretation that reinforce unfounded stereotypes” that “would be amusing if not so dangerous”

Getting back to Gould’s work, I am unaware that he misrepresented anyone’s work in evolution at all. In fact, his career had several instances where he changed his interpretations of evidence based on subsequent work.

What impressed me about this book when I read it 20 years ago was his attempt to link human behaviors to the work that scientists were doing and to show how their humanity determined not only the way in which they practiced science but the way in which their practice had sever consequences. In particular, this book describes the way in which the first large scale use of IQ testing on American Soldiers in World War I was used to decide that Northern and Central Europeans were superior to all other racial groups. The result was the enactment of the most draconian immigration laws in our history whose consequences we still live with.
What I really believe comes from Gould is the observation that humans impose an order on things that may or may not mean something in reality. It is important to note that our love affair affair with “intelligence” or “g” or whatever you may call it is a human construct that may help us make some decisions correctly but it is not the ultimate guide for conducting our lives.
In many senses, Gould brings to his analysis of Science the appreciation of human limitations and fallibility that has been a part of Judeo-Christian thought for millennia. Perhaps as we look at these tests, we put them in that context.

China runs an active eugenics program. Couples are tested for ‘fitness’ and ‘encouraged’ to be sterilized if they are deemed unfit for breeding.

The ‘one child policy’ means that the ‘lesser-valued’ female infants go ‘missing’ and crowd-out the adoption agencies.

Current Western supporters of eugenics argue that the Western world is turning into a racial nightmare and killing itself from the inside out by it’s devotion to egalitarian/liberal attitudes on race.

They go further (in their fantasy of End-Times and racial paranoia) to suggest that if America is to defeat China as a future superpower, then America needs to start adopting eugenics again, or become weakened by interbreeding/inferior races

American clinics currently offer the Chinese selective birth treatments for the right price.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13323730/

For current American supporters of eugenics see The Pioneer Foundation (The Bell Curve), American Rennaissance et al.

Regards,

John