Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 >
Topic Options
#236348 - 04/17/07 01:18 PM Satanism and Eugenics
The_Sixth_Circle Offline
CoS Member

Registered: 10/06/04
Posts: 432
Loc: Hell; where else?
There isn’t much doubt that the theory of eugenics is an unpopular one. Any individual holding a belief in eugenic practice is generally considered either ill or incorrect. Funnily enough, as Satanists, just such accusations have been levelled at us in the past, with negligible evidence that said detractors have any idea of what a eugenicist actually subscribes to. Bearing that in mind, it’s perhaps time that a few pertinent bits and pieces are ironed out, so that those who have a problem with the championing of eugenics can at least have an objective definition to petition against. Honestly, I’m doing you a favour.

To start with, here is what the dictionary definition states:

Eugenics: The study of or belief in the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population, esp. by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics).

To those with even a passing interest in the animal kingdom, this is nothing new; it’s just called selective and/or pure breeding. For those with even a passing interest in Satanism, it would appear obvious why Satanists would espouse such ideals. With humans being merely another species of animal, there is nothing contradictory in hoping that a percentage of potential within a human would become unobstructed if it didn’t have certain physical hurdles to jump. Increased motor functions, advanced intelligence and more robust physical specimens would all be part of the beneficial product of humans breeding selectively. Perhaps at least carefully?

But this is where the issues arise. Because theories of eugenics have been administrated before, always accompanied by differing scales of genocide, the term is considered a biological landmine. The enforcement of such policy would lead us straight back to Nazi Germany, an unpalatable consequence or result for the vast majority of people; after all, nobody likes totalitarian regimes. But those who decry eugenics so quickly are typically making the wrong associations. No Satanist is suggesting genocide on any scale whatsoever, or the suggestion of a totalitarian regime that enforces the policy by violence, intimidation and murder. Nope, not once. What is being suggested is that the idea of consenting adults reproducing with a mind on better prospects for the arriving infant can only make sense. While totalitarian governments kill detractors, Satanists are suggesting that an increase in education on the subject of eugenics could remove the flawed tag that the term carries and, subsequently, allow prospective parents to make a more informed choice. Unfortunately, this proclamation at any level would see political revilement come from all angles – claims of racism, sexism, ageism, bigotry and all the other “ism’s” and “ist’s” would be expected fare. But to suggest that any person should believe that the only desirable traits worth breeding are found in their own race, would be an erroneous one. White people have intellects, athletes, artists and mediators. And irrespective of what you happen to believe, predominantly black and Asian cultures have such qualities as well. In other words, the spectre of mindless racism is immediately recognised and exorcised for what it is; putting words into mouths, where no such words would otherwise exist, purely to avoid objectively researching the merits of eugenic theory. Because all races, whether interbreeding occurred or not, would still have the same opportunities to breed what a culture considers desirable traits.

But, I mentioned education. And education shows that if it were only as simple as that! Unfortunately, the passing of genes is not as predictable as the above passage makes it sound. By two intellectual people passing genes to their offspring, they are not guaranteeing that the child will share a similar (or, perhaps, better) intellect. This is because certain genes only work to such an effect in combinations. Single genes rarely do anything on their own and it is, in fact, the combinations of genes that work simultaneously that will have the greatest effect. Because this, therefore, cannot be counted upon, the “exact science” of eugenics becomes an oxymoron. Now, without wishing to overcomplicate a topic that I’m not an expert on myself, let me put this point another way. If you want a cup of coffee (intellectual child), then certain ingredients (genes) will be needed make this happen. First of all you’ll need the coffee beans, then you’ll need the water, then you’ll require milk and finally you’ll need sugar. Naturally, many people like different cups of coffee. Some would like to put in extra sugar, some perhaps a bit of cream on top; perhaps you like to lace your coffee with vanilla, or maybe you like an espresso shot. The point I’m making, is that the more specific you want to be, the more ingredients (or, in the current context, genes) you will require. In saying that, the only two ingredients you actually need for a cup of coffee, are the beans and the water. Therefore, when recombinating genes into a preferred sequence, it is best for the prospective parent not to overcomplicate what is required. Cutting a very long story short, this line of thought, which is biologically sound, seems to be where the straw man of eugenics is blown down. Because no two parents can guarantee that their offspring will end up having the desired genetic trait, there is no point in trying to true breed children.

Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa sweet child ‘o mine. Not so fast.

The biologist who makes such a claim isn’t actually doing his sums correctly, which is a scientific heresy. First and foremost, the suggestion that eugenics is a banal practice on the basis of not being able to guarantee heritable traits, is simply wrong. If two parents are passing on the same genetic combination that allows for intelligence to blossom, the reproduction of that combination sees its chances increasing. If only one parent was to pass down his “brains”, the combination is far less likely. There is no guarantee, of course, but the percentages start to go in your favour. Even the simplest of mathematical equations shows this to be true; if we add two (one intelligent parent) and two (another intelligent parent), we are capable of receiving two, three or four of the genetic combination points. If we add two (one intelligent parent) to zero (a stupid parent), we end up with either two or one of our points. The point should be clear. Eugenic decriers are also deliberately ignoring just how such practices have worked with animals of other species. While speciesism is as prevalent as any other form of bigotry, that doesn’t mean that such sloppy analysis should be excused. Again, there is no guarantee of how the genes will recombine, but the evidence for the increase in percentage is obvious to anyone who cares to look. Of course, we need only look at the first sentence of the dictionary definition again to see why this is still a relevant ideology; the belief in the possibility of improving qualities is what we’re talking about. And because small percentages tend to become bigger percentages over time, I think the practice of eugenics is a particularly pertinent one.

Actually, getting back to the definition for a second it would appear I’ve only dealt with one facet; positive eugenics. Funnily enough, because this is the least robust of the two types from a scientific viewpoint, its concentration can hardly be considered a coincidence. While I’ve established that eugenics is a worthwhile activity from a positive angle, that it should be worthwhile from a negative point of view is a no-brainer. Once again, however, the problem isn’t one of comprehension or application; it’s one of politics. When we discuss the eradication of “undesirable” traits, politicians and liberals will typically mouth off about undesirable traits translating into skin colour. A government will only want its white/black/Asian participants to breed, thus breeding out the other races. Once again, common sense does not prevail. Personally, I would consider negative traits to be heritable diseases such as cancer, Parkinson’s or Alzheimer’s – in fact you can take your pick. Once again, genetic theory validates this claim. If genes for an illness are not passed down whatsoever, there is no way that such illnesses can propagate in offspring (other than serious mutation, of which the chances are extremely negligible, if they exist at all). In this instance, the possibility that I commented on earlier becomes the elusive guarantee that people seem to believe eugenics cannot provide.

Of course, I’ve yet to touch on the environmental effects of eugenics. If we have two intellectuals and/or athletes, the environment that will be provided for any offspring will be conducive to the talent they’re likely to have. And while environmental factors play a far smaller part in the influences on children than most people realise, conscientious parents will ensure that the correct opportunities are provided for their children to make best use of their talents. All in all, I happen to think that the practice of eugenics is one that is particularly desirable for our species.

But I haven’t dealt with the implications of making such a move, politically and this is deliberate. Because widespread views on what is to be considered desirable would bedevil any lists that were drawn up, I’m advocating these ideas to be ones of personal choice. If a person wants the best for their children (whether they’ve had them or not), they have the right to be introduced to a less biased idea of eugenics so that it can be given fair and due consideration. If one were to pursue eugenics from a political angle, however, the implementation wouldn’t be as complicated as you might think. Temporary sterilization for children when they are at the beginning of their reproductive lives would be a huge start and one that I would personally champion. Not only would this have hugely beneficial social implications (smaller school classes, less hospital beds being taken up, less people on welfare, more jobs), it’s the simplest way to ensure those without the necessary responsibility won’t breed. I’m sick to the bone every time I see a twelve or thirteen year old pregnant in the newspapers, as they are utterly flaunting the law and the law seems disinterested in doing something about it. And while there would be an outcry that civil liberties are being impinged, any reasonable moral person would need to consider the rights of an unborn child to be born into an environment that will help potential to blossom. Personally, I have no time for third-generation welfare dependents who continue to breed in order to get more money from the state. Again, eugenics could be a first step toward eliminating such things.

I’m going to finish here, as this is merely intended as an introduction to eugenics and a starting point to the understanding why Satanists would support it. You are only advised to read this little musing and think about the very real possibilities that go with it, without considering it an exhaustive dissertation. Under no circumstances should you start making assumptions or insinuations based on what I’ve said, for I hate having words put in my mouth by witless complainants. Just read, interpret and think – for some of you, that won’t be a challenge.

For others, however, it will.
_________________________
Have You Met The Alien Elite? / The Sixth Circle @ Myspace

Truth, in matters of religion, is simply the opinion that has survived. - Sir Oscar Wilde

Top
#236382 - 04/17/07 02:34 PM Re: Satanism and Eugenics [Re: The_Sixth_Circle]
Jack_Lantern Offline
CoS Member

Registered: 07/06/05
Posts: 2785
Loc: America
PGD, or pre-implantation genetic diagnostic is about as close to eugenics options for parents that I think society and culture can tolerate at this point. PGD covers negative eugenics, such as negatively selecting for cancer and other gentically based diseases. Pretty soon it will also cover positive eugenics, as understanding of the roles genes play in constructing the human body grows.

In the light of politics, PGD used for personal eugenics is more likely to recieve opposition from the fundamentalist right than the libral left, because it involves the creation of several embryos, and since only one is going to be implanted guess what happens to the others?

Cultural acceptance of PGD will vary. Politically it is a null issue now, culturally it could possibly range from being widely accepted to being widely rejected. The later is a rediculous reaction considering the fact that culture is itself a eugenics program, with the reservation that it is not intentional or guided.

Of course the single greatest factor to anyones resistance of eugenics depends on how much a person can accept the fact that we are animals. But more than a hundred years after Darwin, people still have trouble realizing that animals are not immutable fixed species, and that man is only different from other animals by degree of certain traits. I think that even without the Nazis and there eugenic fumbling, there would still be a widspread abhorance of eugenics because of these two factors. So educating people on the possible value of eugenics would depend first on teaching people that the two beliefs stated above are just not so.
_________________________
"If a man empties his purse into his head no one can take it away from him. An investment in knowledge always pays the best interest." -Benjamin Franklin

Top
#236393 - 04/17/07 03:30 PM What's next. [Re: The_Sixth_Circle]
Nemo Offline
CoS Magister

Registered: 10/06/02
Posts: 12572
Loc: Point Nemo s48:52:31:748, w123...
The past focus was on future generations.

The future points to changing the genetics of the living individual directly.

Top
#236414 - 04/17/07 03:55 PM Re: Satanism and Eugenics [Re: The_Sixth_Circle]
Ace Offline


Registered: 07/19/06
Posts: 18
Loc: Lexington, Kentucky
Very good, very articulate essay. It would be better to focus more on the 'positive' eugenics than the negative, because getting rid of people with negative genes would cause too much controversy (mostly with liberals). Also supporting negative eugenics in politics gives racists an excuse to hate and gives reasoning to genocide.

Sadly, explaining eugenics to a average person probably wouldn't get you anywhere. If anything they would probably just get offended. There's not much place for eugenics in politics, better leave it to the intellectuals.

Top
#236418 - 04/17/07 04:08 PM Re: Satanism and Eugenics [Re: The_Sixth_Circle]
Entity Offline

CoS Reverend

Registered: 03/23/02
Posts: 1774
Loc: Avalon UK
It seems that the drop in crime during the late 1980's and early 1990's in the US had very little to do with the suspected causes; the strong economy, increased capital punishment, innovative policing, increased numbers of police, tougher gun laws or an aging population.

According to Steven D. Levitt in his abortion paper published in 2001, the cause of lower crime was the nationwide legalisation of abortion in 1973. By 1970, New York, California, Washington, Alaska and Hawaii had already done so, and Levitt noticed that crime began to drop in these states around three years before it did so in the rest of the country.

To prove the point, Levitt submitted data showing that states with higher rates of abortion in the 1970's experienced lower crime in the 1990's.

Basically, the gloomy projections that that were made in the early 1980's, that crime would continue to increase to unmanageable proportions, never happened, because the millions of disaffected youth who would have exacerbated the crime problem were never born.

Clearly, this "unexpected benefit" establishes a strong case for negative eugenics. And without a Nazi in sight.

As soon as medical genetics begins to eliminate inherited diseases, and it will, I think the general populace will begin to perceive the word 'eugenics' as removed from its previous totalitarian connotations. Don't quote me on that, though.

Thanks for starting this thread, The Sixth Circle, I expect there will be some interesting reading here.

HS!
_________________________
~ Reverend Entity

Nothing is better than to live according to one's taste. - François Villon

Test Everything. Believe Nothing.

Top
#236427 - 04/17/07 04:25 PM Re: Satanism and Eugenics [Re: Ace]
Linguascelesta Offline

CoS Warlock

Registered: 11/01/05
Posts: 2352
Loc: Europa
 Originally Posted By: Ace
It would be better to focus more on the 'positive' eugenics than the negative, because getting rid of people with negative genes would cause too much controversy (mostly with liberals).


And? :p

 Quote:
Also supporting negative eugenics in politics gives racists an excuse to hate and gives reasoning to genocide.



No; that is only if they don't understand the concepts involved. Even if they tried to define the "eu" part the way the Nazis did, then it wouldn't really give an excuse to genocide, any more than abortion is infanticide. Of course, some would argue that latter point, but hey. There is a distinction. To anyone who claims otherwise, I would ask if they take a Catholic "every sperm is sacred" stance on contraception, for example.

 Quote:
If anything they would probably just get offended.


Aww, what a shame that'd be.

 Quote:
There's not much place for eugenics in politics, better leave it to the intellectuals.


Sorry, who?

Top
#236449 - 04/17/07 05:46 PM Re: Satanism and Eugenics [Re: The_Sixth_Circle]
Lust Offline


Registered: 11/02/05
Posts: 4214
A fantastic introduction to Eugenics! Thank you for starting this thread The_Sixth_Circle.

I also like the 1970 definition that I.I. Gottesman, a director of the American Eugenics Society gave.

"The essence of evolution is natural selection; the essence of eugenics is the replacement of 'natural' selection by conscious, premeditated, or artificial selection in the hope of speeding up the evolution of 'desirable' characteristics and the elimination of undesirable ones."
_________________________
�Love is one of the most intense feelings felt by man; another is hate. Forcing yourself to feel indiscriminate love is very unnatural. If you try to love everyone you only lessen your feelings for those who deserve your love. Repressed hatred can lead to many physical and emotional aliments. By learning to release your hatred towards those who deserve it, you cleanse yourself of these malignant emotions and need not take your pent-up hatred out on your loved ones.�
Anton Szandor LaVey, The Satanic Bible

Top
#236477 - 04/17/07 07:31 PM Re: Satanism and Eugenics [Re: The_Sixth_Circle]
leonor Offline


Registered: 08/31/06
Posts: 340
Loc: Portugal
You did quite effectively cover the positive and negative aspects of the matter.

I will now state why I’m for positive eugenics (and positive eugenics alone).

 Originally Posted By: The_Sixth_Circle
percentages tend to become bigger percentages over time


 Originally Posted By: The_Sixth_Circle
If a person wants the best for their children (whether they’ve had them or not), they have the right to be introduced to a less biased idea of eugenics so that it can be given fair and due consideration.


 Originally Posted By: The_Sixth_Circle
I have no time for third-generation welfare dependents who continue to breed in order to get more money from the state.


This basically sums it up.

Provided both the information and the proceedings are made available and legal for anyone who seeks them (with the necessary adjustments on general education) and welfare is revised and made stricter in order to disrupt the vicious circle, causing dysfunctional families to propagate from generation to generation, positive eugenics along with natural selection, are prone to give good results in the long run.

Based on the assumption positive eugenics would simply end up reinforcing the trend natural selection stands for, no need for compulsory measures would be ever required, would they?

First obstacle:

There seems to be no political motivation to disrupt parasitism based on welfare, to even allow the effects of natural selection to operate as effectively as they should, leave alone eugenics as an option. Right wing is religious; left wing bond to favour the less privileged. Parasites may still rely on that. This is an evidence in any country of the western world. (Crisis seems to be the only circumstance upon which politicians are prone to cut off on welfare, believe me I know).

Second obstacle:

Public opinion. I agree that genetic research for medical purposes (i.e of terminal diseases, reconstructive medicine) may be the proper approach to have eugenics dissociated from its negative connotations, in the long run. Public opinion is an obstacle for one simple reason: Politicians will not give way to its legal practice unless their voters are not scared about it.

There you go. No matter how small the number of people that will resort to it at first, the voter mindset shall have to change one way or another, so obstacles are political either way.

october1560
_________________________
Time does not imply evolution. Very true. We are stepping back. One generates haunting monsters that generate haunting monsters on an endless spiral of misunderstanding, unsolved needs, moral amulets eradicating both the sickness and the cure.
I see a bunch of men raging at the void, haunted by their own inventions. Absurd. Totally absurd.

Top
#236478 - 04/17/07 07:31 PM Re: Satanism and Eugenics [Re: The_Sixth_Circle]
Ixmucane Offline
CoS Member

Registered: 07/15/06
Posts: 109
One of my teachers said once that she much preferred studying genetic inheritance in drosophila because you could get them to breed with whichever partner was genetically appropriate in order to produce the desired trait in their offspring, she went on to saying that such studies would never be possible in humans because we have this...will... and would flat out refuse to breed without feeling love and a connection to our mate. Fruit flies on the other hand were so much more cooperative.

My point is that implementing eugenics in the human species would be very difficult, specially positive eugenics. Negative eugenics could be more acceptable, I mean some people are already choosing to abort a fetus after a negative result obtained from genetic testing. Even so, there are many who consciously opt for giving birth to a child whom they know will have major health problems. But I believe this type of artificial selection has a higher chance of success for acceptance.

The main conundrum with negative eugenics would be: what traits are so undesirable that would merit death to their carrier? Major diseases are of course a no-brainer, how about diseases that allow the carrier to remain a functional and a fully contributing individual? We could even move on more superficial traits, such as a perky perfect nose or luscious full lips, etc.

Concerns about it becoming an excuse for genocide are well founded, but then we are assuming that just about anyone could decide as to the details of it, I would personally think that it would NOT be a free for all, but there are a lot of nuts out there.

Anyhow thanks The_Sixth_Circle for bringing up such a fascinating subject.
_________________________
Life consists not in holding good cards but in playing those you hold well.
- Josh Billings

Top
#236550 - 04/17/07 10:53 PM Re: Satanism and Eugenics [Re: Linguascelesta]
Ace Offline


Registered: 07/19/06
Posts: 18
Loc: Lexington, Kentucky
 Quote:
No; that is only if they don't understand the concepts involved. Even if they tried to define the "eu" part the way the Nazis did, then it wouldn't really give an excuse to genocide, any more than abortion is infanticide. Of course, some would argue that latter point, but hey. There is a distinction. To anyone who claims otherwise, I would ask if they take a Catholic "every sperm is sacred" stance on contraception, for example.


If you can argue abortion is infanticide, than you can justify genocide with eugenics.

Top
#236556 - 04/17/07 11:12 PM Re: Satanism and Eugenics [Re: Ace]
RandomStranger Offline
CoS Warlock

Registered: 03/09/05
Posts: 2770
Loc: Here.
 Originally Posted By: Ace
If you can argue abortion is infanticide, than you can justify genocide with eugenics.


Absolute Bullshit.

Your "argument" is already on the slippery slope and not gaining footing.

The USA used to have a eugenics program and it didn't involve killing anyone. Maybe some mandatory sterilization but big deal.
_________________________




Top
#236583 - 04/18/07 12:27 AM Re: Satanism and Eugenics [Re: Entity]
Discipline Offline
CoS Warlock

Registered: 08/25/03
Posts: 6796
Loc: Forever West
That is a really interesting point, one that I have not really taken into consideration. The idea that abortion is the leading cause for lower crime is an interesting one and worth taking a serious look at. It seems very feasible.
_________________________
"I've learned . . . that life is like a roll of toilet paper. The closer it gets to the end, the faster it goes." ~Andy Rooney

"At last I shall have time to devote myself seriously and freely to the destruction of all my former opinions." ~Descartes

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself—and you are the easiest person to fool.” ~Richard Feynman

Top
#236594 - 04/18/07 12:51 AM Re: Satanism and Eugenics [Re: Discipline]
TrojZyr Offline
CoS Witch

Registered: 07/25/01
Posts: 12990
Loc: The Solid State
Theoretically, I love eugenics like a fat man (with a plastic crow on one shoulder) loves doughnuts.

Especially with all the problems that overpopulation brings, I tend to believe, personally, that reproduction is a privilege, not an inalienable right. Even in the animal kingdom, not every organism gets his or her chance to shine.

Certainly, yes, it is more reasonable, straightforward, and much less controversial to focus on positive eugenics. (But, I also court the idea of negative eugenics, too, despite the problems it potentially creates. I even tend to think some people are unfit to be parents not only because their genetic codes are inferior, but because they lack the ability to properly raise a child, for whatever reason.)

It really wouldn't surprise me much that abortion leads to a drop in crime. Poverty is often a cause of crime, and poor people are often not so good at family planning. (There are likely other reasons, as well.)
_________________________
"Gentlemen, the verdict is guilty, on all ten counts of first-degree stupidity. The penalty phase will now begin."--Divine, "Pink Flamingos."

"The strong rule the weak, and the cunning rule over all." HS!

Top
#236596 - 04/18/07 12:58 AM Re: Satanism and Eugenics [Re: TrojZyr]
Discipline Offline
CoS Warlock

Registered: 08/25/03
Posts: 6796
Loc: Forever West
I always agreed with Dr. LaVey in the point that if you want to get rid of the world's problems you will have to get rid of people. Guns, eugenics, racism, sex, and naughty words are all just tools or traits of humans. So, if you want to solve the problems remove people that cause the problems and not the tools and traits.

But that is far from what the socialist goody goods want to hear.
_________________________
"I've learned . . . that life is like a roll of toilet paper. The closer it gets to the end, the faster it goes." ~Andy Rooney

"At last I shall have time to devote myself seriously and freely to the destruction of all my former opinions." ~Descartes

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself—and you are the easiest person to fool.” ~Richard Feynman

Top
#236607 - 04/18/07 02:25 AM Re: Satanism and Eugenics [Re: Discipline]
TrojZyr Offline
CoS Witch

Registered: 07/25/01
Posts: 12990
Loc: The Solid State
Every sperm is sacred, after all ;)~.
_________________________
"Gentlemen, the verdict is guilty, on all ten counts of first-degree stupidity. The penalty phase will now begin."--Divine, "Pink Flamingos."

"The strong rule the weak, and the cunning rule over all." HS!

Top
Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 >


Forum Stats
12198 Members
73 Forums
43978 Topics
406027 Posts

Max Online: 197 @ 10/04/11 06:49 AM
Advertisements