Antidysgeneticarianismalistic
The traffic control guy at Lidcombe station got stabbed today. The station construction forced the adjacent road into a one lane, one way street and the traffic's been diverted. We have two traffic control people there everyday, smiling, smoking, twirling their stop/slow signs and wondering why they never went to uni. Apparently, they weren't fast enough and a car somewhere near the back kept honking as if more noise would get them to B earlier. When they eventually did get to the pedestrian crossing, the car stopped (holding up the traffic behind them). The driver got out, stabbed the guy, and drove off. In front of a busload of uni students, the team of construction workers, various commuters, pedestrians and shopkeepers. Meanwhile, half of said busload were running late to their uni exam.
Speaking of which, I do believe I just got my first distinction of the year. Perhaps a HD. But I am a humble, modest person. The neuro exam was considerably easier than it could've been, but there were still a few maybes. It was in the afternoon, so all of us wasted most of the day studying or waiting, since there's little else we could do. At least that's over. All we have for the coming seven days are a couple of theory audit tasks, S&M audit task, S&M assignment, HO audot task and HO ssignment. My course has good acronyms.
On the snopes lj feed, I made the mistake of expressing a possibility. Now I have to explain what I think and why I think things and why I seem to want the world's human population dead. Oh, and also I have to explain my 2am spelling errors. See, this is why I don't like people. I have to interact with them and everything is all complicated and I have to ring the place which you ring where you get book from for when you want to buy books which you sell from your bookshop.
Eugenics still seems to be a touchy subject these days. I believe in eugenics, but not most of the ways in which it has been implemented. The whole Holocaust or the Tall Race or the Nobel Sperm Bank thing does not produce a better next generation. It'll give birth to whiter, taller, or smarter generations, but these traits are not beneficial in the natural world. At least not any more than other phenotypes.
I think there are two possible beneficial avenues that eugenics can take. We can either try to advance the population of the human civilisation by breeding healthy, intelligent individuals, and the children should be raised with discipline. Or we can forget human civilisation and live off the land, evolving through environmental pressure the way we were meant to.
Breeding to advance the civilisation will work better once all production and disposal of human consumption is robotised or one section of the population labours solely to sustain the metabolism and anabolism of the entire race. Ultimately, the civilisation will destroy itself, as we cannot hope to comprehend the complex, integrated, chaotic logistics of the world's environment to attempt to control the balance of the world. Perhaps we could develop advanced enough brains to figure out how to realise the Raelian goal of moving to another planet (or creating life on another planet) once we've destroyed our own. Perhaps, if not a brain now, the brains of the future will understand the global environment and limit the human monopoly of control to allow the Earth to heal. But today's civilisation will continue to destroy as our non-selective breeding is uncontrolled.
Other people, I suppose, don't have to stop breeding but their detrimental offspring will be a burden to society unless they embrace menial labour as their life occupation. Smart throwbacks can be integrated into the intelligent elite if they can contribute to the advancement of civilisation. However, the right to live should be in direct relation to the contribution to intelligence and a healthier gene pool. Perhaps the alpha → epsilon classing of brave new world world work (seeing as this is long and boring enough for me not to bother explaining myself).
One would be extremely optimistic to hope that humankind would forget advancing the human civilisation to allow the environment to operate as it should. One could also argue that the advancement of humankind is the course of nature - why we have bigger brains, why we are so populous, why we are so dominant. But as I said before, we will ultimately lead to our own downfall. Would it not be better to shy away from total world control and allow other species to recover from our selfish demolition?
I'm not saying we should not be intelligent. If we can maintain our intelligence without the need to constantly decimate natural resources, we can allow the environment to operate as it should. If we lived in a hunter gatherer civilisation, we can subject ourselves to the environmental pressures necessary to resume our evolution. The intelligent can be revered for wisdom and insight in the bigger picture, however we will no longer refine crude oil to make plastic knick knacks, log acres of forest to wipe our arses, dump waste into the waters so we wont have to deal with it any more.
Although I'd love to save the rhino, we wouldn't need to if we'd left its habitat as it was. Many species of plants and animals are no longer suitable for life in this world because of what we've done. However, fast adapting classes of organisms are thriving as they evolve quickly, due to their huge broods, high variation and survival / perishment response to environmental pressure. Perhaps the future of life on Earth is the proliferation of arthropods as the dominant life form, seeing as they already have the greatest biomass and they adapt so quickly to the environment.
So maybe "eugenicist" is not the best term for me, if only because of the antagonistic history of eugenics. Perhaps "antidysgeneticist" makes more sense. Dysgenetics is the evolutionary survival of detrimental genes due to the absence of environmental pressures. I just want to reintroduce the environmental pressures to homo sapiens.
6x