• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

So Kent Hovind supports eugenics?

Jerrymander

Muse
Jerrymander
Joined
Oct 28, 2012
Messages
625
Apparently Kent Hovind (the same Kent Hovind would claims the theory of evolution leads to genocide) thinks that find we applied biblical law and executed not only murderers but also homosexuals, adulterers, disobedient kids etc, we would be getting rid of people with "mean genes" and have a more docile society.

At around 13:20
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4y4J7o62-w8

When confronted on this, Hovind denied he supported eugenics, just that society would be better off if people for selected for like dogs and chickens.

At around 0:39
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4hB8PzOBMM
 
Jerrymander said:
Apparently Kent Hovind (the same Kent Hovind would claims the theory of evolution leads to genocide) thinks that find we applied biblical law and executed not only murderers but also homosexuals, adulterers, disobedient kids etc, we would be getting rid of people with "mean genes" and have a more docile society.
Click to expand...

Doesn't he believe God already tried that?
I seem to recall something about a flood.
 
I don't know this Hovind guy, and I'll probably disagree with him but I do want to say that eugenics is more scientific than the theory of the protection and
preservation of the weak, the theory that is nowadays accepted without criticism, AKA egalitarianism. That one has no scientific merit and leads straight to
degeneration, while eugenics is dependent on the level of knowledge of the one in power. So, eugenics is merely biased natural selection, while egalitarianism
is fully unnatural selection. Eugenics is therefore the lesser evil.
My prediction is that eugenics will become relevant again when the damage done by egalitarian extremism becomes clear ...
 
TheAdversary said:
So, eugenics is merely biased natural selection, while egalitarianism is fully unnatural selection.
Click to expand...

No, you've got that wrong.

Egalitarianism results in natural selection.
Eugenics is a process of artificial selection.

The egalitarian approach is where everyone has the same rights and opportunities straight from the beginning.

But equal rights and opportunities does not mean equal results.

Those who are a better fit for their environment (society and the world in which we live) will tend to be more likely to prosper, find suitable mates, ect. Their genes will be more likely to spread throughout the population.

While those who are a worse fit for their environment will tend to be less successful, more likely to end up in financial difficulties, dead from drugs, recklessness or Darwin-award level stupidity, or less likely to find a mate. Their genes will be less likely to spread throughout the population, and more likely to be gradually bred-out of the population.

True, without significant adversity in the environment the effect will only be slight, working mostly on a gradual statistical level rather than at an obvious individual level, but the effect will still be there, acting as an ongoing filter to ensure that the human race doesn't degenerate into useless sacks of protoplasm.
 
Last edited:
Egalitarianism coupled with advances in technology ensures a higher chance of survival for those unfit otherwise. If this is taken too far, the unfit
will not be removed properly from the gene pool. The effect of natural selection is lessened. If this is taken too far, mankind is indeed in danger of
degenerating into useless sacks of ****.
That is, egalitarianism the way it is implemented now using medical technology does at least try to ensure equal results. People who can't reproduce, can still reproduce, for example. Or people who would have died otherwise from cancer or hereditary defects can still pass on their genes.

Edited by Agatha: 
Edited to comply with rule 10. Please type all swear words out in full and correctly spelled - if they are on the forum's naughty list they will be automatically censored. In the public sections of the forum ( SMMT is a public section), do not attempt to circumvent the autocensor by replacing characters or by the use of creative spellings.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
TheAdversary said:
Egalitarianism coupled with advances in technology ensures a higher chance of survival for those unfit otherwise. If this is taken too far, the unfit
will not be removed properly from the gene pool. The effect of natural selection is lessened. If this is taken too far, mankind is indeed in danger of
degenerating into useless sacks of ****.
That is, egalitarianism the way it is implemented now using medical technology does at least try to ensure equal results. People who can't reproduce, can still reproduce, for example. Or people who would have died otherwise from cancer or hereditary defects can still pass on their genes.
Click to expand...

Natural selection is a descriptive theory. When it comes to human beings, every attempt to make it prescriptive has resulted in regrettable consequences which range from the individually tragic to appalling disaster on a vast scale. Let us do what is moral and compassionate in individual cases and let the frequency of alleles look after themselves.

By the way, despite more than a century of medical technology that enables people to pass on their genes who in previous ages would not have done so (in my case, I would have died of acute asthma in my teens), we are healthier with a longer life expectancy than any previous generation.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
'Natural selection is a descriptive theory. When it comes to human beings, every attempt to make it prescriptive has resulted in regrettable consequences which
range from the individually tragic to appalling disaster on a vast scale. Let us do what is moral and compassionate in individual cases and let the frequency of
alleles look after themselves.'

This is why egalitarianism became irrefutable. Because of disasters from the past. But then mankind went too far into the other direction and egalitarianism going
too far is its own disaster. A far worse one.

'By the way, despite more than a century of medical technology that enables people to pass on their genes who in previous ages would not have done so (in my case,
I would have died of acute asthma in my teens), we are healthier with a longer life expectancy than any previous generation.'

The problem is that natural selection is compromised so that people who couldn't survive before, can even thrive now. But this comes at a price :
People who in previous times could survive, the strong, now have a hard time properly surviving and passing on their genes. It's the people who,
simplified and for the sake of argument, posses the 'warrior-gene'. This society prefers nice and docile, and considers warrior gened people mentally ill.
It's not a taboo in present-day academic settings to explicitly state that the 'warrior-gene' needs to be removed/exterminated. They call it a 'bad gene'.
But in doing that, they're throwing out the baby with the bathwater. The warrior virtues will consequently also disappear. Virtues like Courage and
Honour. This society prefers to breed people who are nice and docile, but also lack warrior-virtues like that completely.
That leads to the kind of person that would look in the other direction when their best friend is attacked, but later go to the hospital and say they're
going to 'care' for them. A whole society of people like that? In my opinion, that's a disaster. Backstabbing, lying, virtueless cowards only.
And, the concept of mental health needs to be adapted to this. So a backstabbing coward is seen as sane, and a courageous soldier is seen as mentally ill.
So the concept of health is skewed as well.
Anti-egalitarianism has led to disaster in the past, yes, but nothing compared to the egalitarian disaster that's going on as we speak. But time will tell ...
 
The extermination of the 'warrior-gene' from Western society is the reason for radicalization, terrorism, school shootings etc. The social and mind sciences
should adapt to a broader view of morality such as presented in Genealogy of Morality, which turns out to be the most scientific theory of morality ever
presented. Moral Psychologists can never derive their notions of right and wrong from anything else than group consensus, and that's not very scientific,
but it's exactly what Genealogy of Morality claims : slave morality only ever follows from group consensus. The only morality that can be rationally
justified is one based on freedom of choice. Obviously, otherwise a wrong choice is simply impossible. This leads to master morality or the Will to Power
being the only sane possibility for a moral framework. And examples of master moralistic psychology can be found in the Godfather movies.
 
TheAdversary said:
'
That leads to the kind of person that would look in the other direction when their best friend is attacked, but later go to the hospital and say they're
going to 'care' for them. A whole society of people like that? In my opinion, that's a disaster. Backstabbing, lying, virtueless cowards only.
And, the concept of mental health needs to be adapted to this. So a backstabbing coward is seen as sane, and a courageous soldier is seen as mentally ill.
So the concept of health is skewed as well.
Anti-egalitarianism has led to disaster in the past, yes, but nothing compared to the egalitarian disaster that's going on as we speak. But time will tell ...
Click to expand...

There are other evolutionarily stable strategies that may come out of the 'egalitarian' society. The human species may be becoming eusocial, as in hymenoptera, termites and naked mole rats.

It is often said that in our society the 'smart people' tend to have fewer people than the 'dull people'. An intelligent temperament' has an hereditary component (definition of temperament). So 'natural selection' favors 'dull' genomes. This some believe will lead to a society of dull people. However, there are environmental components of being smart.

I would argue that natural selection is favoring 'uneducated' and 'tribal oriented people' people. Religion has a role in this, although it is not the only factor. People are rejecting education not because they are stupid, but because they don't want to be part of the larger society. They forgo personal success for group success. Kent Hovind and his followers may be a good example of this.

So we have to look at epigenetic factors. We have to consider which genes are switched on in an individual (RNA, prions, neurohumors) as well as the genome (DNA). Learned behavior causes differentiation within a family, at least as much as genetics.

This can be seen in an ant colony. The ants in a colony are all related. However, it is broken up into castes that have only a slight dependence on genome. The basic difference between castes is a matter of environment and timing. The caste of an individual is largely determined by the pherenomes that the workers give it. The pherenomes determine the morphology of the imago ant. Tactile, olfaction and gustatory signals govern their 'caste specific' behavior. The variation between castes is almost all environmental. I propose that the differences between castes in an ant colony is equal to or greater than than those within a human community.

The 'secularly educated' and 'successful' people in society tend to have fewer children than the 'religiously educated' and 'unsuccessful' people. Educated people are often oriented toward the huan race rather than their families. I suspect that even in 'nonreligious' families, the ones who don't get an education are those who don't really want to be with the 'educated' people. They want to be with their 'family', either by blood or by adaption.


So imagine a cult of humans. The head of the tribe is a raving lunatic, although he could be very educated. He could have an extensive religious education, which reinforces the attachment of the family rather than the human race. The head of the tribe has lots of kids, maybe even a harem. His cult is composed of uneducated but smart people. They want to be ordered around, but other than that they are smart.

There is kin selection. Most of those followers are trying to make conditions right for the leaders to have lots of kiddies. They may specialize in different professions and jobs that forward the leaders agenda. However, the followers have their own agenda. The influence the leader in all sorts of subtle ways. For one thing, they actually make the criteria for which new members are accepted. So they encourage children who believe as they do and bascially neglect all the other children.

This is basically a eusocial colony for humans. We have seen that type of community in Waco and Jones Town. We see more transitional communities in fundamental religious cults. WE have seen it in movies like 'The Hills Have Eyes' which were based on an actual cult in medieval England (look up Bean family).

I don't know if we are breeding warriors, per se. It seems to me that the warriors in our society are not reproducing as fast as the fanatic leaders. Flying your plane into a building does not greatly increase the chances of you having offspring. However, it may help the people in your fascist community have children. The warrior often kills thousands including himself to advance the agenda of a religious leader, who may have children.

So maybe the naked mole rat shows us the future of the human species. Maybe we are going eusocial. And religious fundamentalists are leading the way!

I don't see that eusocialism is any worse than what we have now!
 
TheAdversary said:
That leads to the kind of person that would look in the other direction when their best friend is attacked, but later go to the hospital and say they're
going to 'care' for them. A whole society of people like that? In my opinion, that's a disaster. Backstabbing, lying, virtueless cowards only.
And, the concept of mental health needs to be adapted to this. So a backstabbing coward is seen as sane, and a courageous soldier is seen as mentally ill.
So the concept of health is skewed as well.
Anti-egalitarianism has led to disaster in the past, yes, but nothing compared to the egalitarian disaster that's going on as we speak. But time will tell ...
Click to expand...
Actually, this kind of society have existed before, and not that rarely. Consider the parable of the tribes. Five societies share the same river valley. They can all live in peace only if every one of them remains peaceful. The moment one "bad apple" is introduced -- say, the young men in one tribe decide that an appropriate way of handling the loss of a loved one is to go bring back some foreigner's head, or that their God has chosen them to be the scourge of unbelievers -- well, the other tribes, if they don't want to be exterminated, have only three options: flee, submit, or reorganize their own societies around effectiveness in war. The logic seems hard to fault. Nevertheless, as anyone familiar with the history of Oceania, Amazonia, or Africa would be aware, a great many societies simply refused to organize themselves on military lines. Again and again, we encounter descriptions of relatively peaceful communities who just accepted that every few years they'd have to take to the hills as some raiding party of local bad boys arrived to torch their villages, rape, pillage, and carry off heads.

In the long term, it is not a bad survival strategy. It guarantees certain losses, but they are predictable losses. Whereas fighting the raiders is far less certain: Maybe you will win, and get yourself an entire generation of peace instead of just a few years. And maybe your entire tribe will be wiped out. And if you do win, it will be because all the intervening years are spent at much higher tension level than they would be otherwise -- "warrior virtues" are not too different from the virtues of a street gang, and tend to be rather hard on the women, the young, and anyone who does not fit in.

We call courage a virtue, and it is a survival strategy, but not the only one.
 
'"warrior virtues" are not too different from the virtues of a street gang, and tend to be rather hard on the women, the young, and anyone who does not fit in.'

An anti-egalitarian system is hard on the weak, preferring people to be strong and to become stronger. The weak do not fit in.
An egalitarian system is hard on the strong, preferring people to be weak and to become weaker. The strong do not fit in.
The problem is that the weak on average show more cruelty to the strong than vice versa due to the lack of virtue in the weak, making the
egalitarian oppression problem far worse for its victims.
 
I'm support the "new eugenics" which has already begun with preimplantation selection and will soon include genetic engineering. I feel like the philosophy behind eugenics gets a bad rap.
 
TheAdversary said:
The problem is that the weak on average show more cruelty to the strong than vice versa due to the lack of virtue in the weak, making the
egalitarian oppression problem far worse for its victims.
Click to expand...
Evidence please.

Show me an egalitarian society where "the strong" are enslaved, or subjected to something like Lakota Sun Dance.
 
I always find amusing that the eugenics idiots never consider the possibility that, under "natural" selection pressure, they would be one of the large majority that didn't make it to 16...
 
Last edited:
Also, who is strong? The Warrior that can crush a head with is bare hands, or the feeble philosopher that can shoot him in the face at 100 paces?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom