Yes. But I would make it conditional: If you are disabled you can choose between getting special disability benefits and being neutered or getting neither. That way, someone who is disabled but otherwise worth a lot (e.g. Stephen Hawking) can still reproduce and only people whose reproduction would harm society are affected.
The odds that the offspring's brain will be at least as special is much, much lower than the odds of inheriting ALS, assuming that the disease is hereditary.
Sure, but the important part for me is that it feels fair. You get something which normal people don't get, which is additional support, but you also have to agree to something, which is that there won't be more people who need additional support because of you.
That's an acceptable compromise. Still, it would have to be exceptional cases. The diseased, disabled, and retarded mustn't, under ordinary circumstances, ever reproduce.
I really think it depends on the type of disability. For example, a red-green impairment or a flat foot might be disabilities, but should IMHO not prevent them from reproduction if they, despite their disability, show that they have high enough value by e.g. earning their own money. Only people who require significant support to live should not be allowed to reproduce because that would mean that society helps them to harm us more because if we wouldn't have helped them, they would have died and could not have reproduced anyway.
Neuter seems like a waste of resources tbh. I mean how many disabled actually reproduce? Can you say?
Lol if you target only people who require signifcant support to live then by that same logic we need to include the welfare queens in the group because they have never worked for anything ever except to take off their pants open their legs for some man and are generational welfare queens
Well, that could actually be a general idea. Generous social support for no reproduction. Currently these people reproduce the most but it would help society if they reproduced the least.
Just remove welfare except for cases such as disability from accidents etc. Welfare queens can go clean houses for money.
You don't have to physically or chemically castrate them one by one. You can set up the law to where reproducing is relegated to a privilege and not a right, at which point it would require permission (license or filling out a form, as ridiculous as they both sound).
Earning money isn't an intrinsic value to society. I'm going to assume that you meant be a producer of goods or provider of services that society values enough to give you an adequate and comfortable amount of money.
That seems like a weak policy in that its the first thing that snowflakes will fight tooth and nail to remove and is overall weak. It would never last a law imho , I could be wrong but i dont see it lasting
Of course, they will. Just as woke fatties fight to combat fat shaming and making that a societal taboo, instead of the opposite, which is promoting greater average societal health through shaming of gluttony.
Yes, that's what I meant.
Yeah, I fully agree. But the main question is how you ascertain someone has high enough value for society. As much as negative eugentics can be useful, positive eugenics is completely missing in most western countries in the name of "equality" (for example, I think in Singapore academics get special benefits if they reproduce)
Lol you have to accept that every generation will have snowflakes, they will never go away. Trying to use law and policies will never work, you need to structure society in a different way example hardworking smart people dont start businesses then snowflakes cant cant welfare maxx because the economy is weak = no taxes. Do you understand now what I mean when I say "structure society" ?
Extensive IQ testing at three points of life: childhood, early teenage, and early adult, genetic testing (for defects and diseases - could be done prenatally), and your role in society (what your job and education level is).
In general, societies are structured top-down. Laws imposed on society are enforced by the authority, which then influence culture, which then has a visible and measurable effect on society. Culture (ideologies that crop up in culture, to be specific) can and does influence law (civil rights, feminist, and LGBT movements) but the effect is comparably minimal than the reverse.
Okay "in general" you say that ideologies, philosophies, structures etc flow from the top --->down. That means yes I said we can structure our immediate society through our Individual actions but in the final analysis all those efforts could actually be meaningless when the majority of society "STILL" opt to follow the structure thats coming to them from "the top" and in the majority of cases society 99% of the time chooses the top ----> down approach instead of doing for self
No, I'm saying that it doesn't matter how we structure society, because it's usually already structured for us by those in power. The point is, something like a law for eugenics has to be exactly that: a law, which has to come from the top. When that happens it won't matter how much bitching and moaning there's going to be about it, like when Roe v Wade was overturned in the US supreme court.
Please give me some quick easy simple examples of how WE structure soyciety and how soyciety is structured FOR us
Honestly, I'm not sure I would want to live in that society. Rather than that, I would prefer intentional genetic alterations. For example, if you know you have a genetic defect then you can try IVF with the defect removed by a healthy allele. I think that would fix the most important problems while still allowing everyone to pass mostly their genes.
Yes, that's why I wanted to have the income as proxy. The income (you earn for your own work) isn't controlled by the central government, but can be seen as proxy for the value you have to society.
Do you have laws and institutions where you live?
Who said you had to?
Your value as a taxpayer is tied to your income, as far the government is concerned, yes. I was speaking more broadly.
yes
Then someone has already structured society for you.
