Yes, it isDecember 31, 2015 Tim WorstallFlatulent tosspottery46 CommentsGood thing, too: Screening sperm donors for autism? As an autistic person, I know that’s the road to eugenics previousOh aye?nextTee hee 46 thoughts on “Yes, it is” Bloke In Cyprus December 31, 2015 at 10:07 am Agreed, I reckon you want the father of your child to be taking a copy of Razzle into the donation room – not The Mister Men… Ian B December 31, 2015 at 10:13 am All mate choice is an attempt at eugenics. Nothing wrong with it, so long as it’s not somebody else making the choices for you. Gasman December 31, 2015 at 10:14 am “‘changes may leave humanity less equal, less diverse, and perhaps even less human” I’m struggling to work out how humanity can be both less diverse and less equal at the same time. Any ideas? The Meissen Bison December 31, 2015 at 10:21 am In the narrative of the progressive liberal intelligentsia, ‘diverse’ has to do with race and ‘equal’ with wealth. Members of the progressive liberal intelligentsia themselves are not constrained by the parameters that they prescribe for others and hence are predominantly white and wealthy. JuliaM December 31, 2015 at 10:23 am Can we screen for progressivism yet? Ian B December 31, 2015 at 10:28 am Oh yes, we very much can. Paul Rain December 31, 2015 at 10:57 am “less human” Bleep blerp! Healthily adjusted humans selecting for social adjustment compromises humanity! Beep beek! Ralph Musgrave December 31, 2015 at 11:10 am Eugenics was fashionable in leftie circles in the early 1950s, which all goes to show that lefties can be made to think anything, and doubtless same applies to righties. See: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/feb/17/eugenics-skeleton-rattles-loudest-closet-left#start-of-comments Roue le Jour December 31, 2015 at 11:17 am I think Julia means before 13 weeks, Ian. Screening at, say, 216 weeks is easy but the termination is difficult. Ian B December 31, 2015 at 11:20 am Libertarian that I am, I could make an exception for laws prohibiting Progressives from copulating. I doubt they’d mind much, since they think it’s all rape anyway. Roue le Jour December 31, 2015 at 11:26 am Eugenics was popular with pretty much everyone in the 1920s. Once infant mortality improved it was obvious that fuckwits were breeding faster than everyone else. Unfortunately the Nazis gave eugenics a bad name so now we practice dysgenics instead. Roue le Jour December 31, 2015 at 11:30 am Ian, Spaying is more humane. Well, more humane than two half bricks, anyway. Ian B December 31, 2015 at 11:46 am Half bricks it is then! Rob December 31, 2015 at 12:02 pm So the current score is selection to avoid Autism is wrong, but the woman’s right to choose to terminate for any reason is paramount. Is that right? Dongguan John December 31, 2015 at 12:02 pm How does being autistic give one a better view on what’s the ‘road to eugenics’? dearieme December 31, 2015 at 12:07 pm It may be that Nobody One Knows believes in eugenics, but I’ll bet everyone believes that dysgenics happens. Funny that. Ian B December 31, 2015 at 12:24 pm I don’t believe in dysgenics, and I’ve argued this with SMFS certainly and others possibly on this very blog. Steve December 31, 2015 at 1:01 pm JuliaM – sadly, all sperm donors are progressives on account of them being wankers. NielsR December 31, 2015 at 1:35 pm “Screening at, say, 216 weeks is easy but the termination is difficult.” Depends, any chance of putting signs outside GPs and hospitals pointing out that antibiotics and immunisation is hopelessly discriminatory and bio-normative, based on patriarchal concepts of (scientific) ‘truth’ and ‘health’, and offering an opt-out/crystal healing? Should weed out the worst given a bit of time. The loss of herd immunity kinda sucks, but might be the lesser evil at this point. bilbaoboy December 31, 2015 at 1:40 pm @Ian B But, doesn’t it hurt? Nah, only if you catch your thumbs! Mr Ecks December 31, 2015 at 1:55 pm “The Road to Eugenics” ? Bob and Bing ought to be ashamed of themselves. salamander December 31, 2015 at 2:11 pm On the one hand, I do agree with screening people, and not just for autism. On the other hand, we do have a sperm shortage in the UK: We have to import it and even then we cannot meet the demand from the turkey baster brigade. Odd that we have a shortage of something that men have an infinite supply off, most of which just get casually flushed into the sewer system on a daily basis. JuliaM December 31, 2015 at 2:23 pm Steve wins another thread! Roue le Jour December 31, 2015 at 2:46 pm Ian, I missed that discussion. What’s your position on dysgenics? Steve December 31, 2015 at 2:49 pm JuliaM – *bows* I thought Mr Ecks’ Road to Eugenics was lollarious. Dorothy Lamour co-stars as Margaret Sanger. Jim December 31, 2015 at 2:55 pm “Odd that we have a shortage of something that men have an infinite supply off, most of which just get casually flushed into the sewer system on a daily basis.” Its almost as if the decision to remove anonymity from sperm donors might have had negative consequences……….what is it about Leftists that they can’t (or refuse to) see how actions have consequences, and quite often not the ones you want? Ian B December 31, 2015 at 3:18 pm Roue- I don’t think there’s any evidence or reason to think that there are dysgenic processes at work in our society/gene pool any more than there were 150 years ago when some of the middle classes started panicking about it in the wake of Darwin or when Malthus wrote his Jeremiad before anyone even knew about evolution. The lumpen masses always outbreed the elite minority, and whether they’re yokel agriculturalists or the urban peasantry makes no difference to that. People continue to select the best mate available as usual. The elites always believe they are where and what they are because of superior breeding, but that doesn’t make it true. My basic view is that humans, like the planet, are basically fine. Roue le Jour December 31, 2015 at 3:51 pm Thanks for that. I shall bear it in mind for future discussions. Hugh December 31, 2015 at 4:00 pm First they came for the autistics. And nobody seemed to mind. Ian B December 31, 2015 at 4:10 pm That sounds eerily like a threat, Roue 🙂 Surreptitious Evil December 31, 2015 at 4:49 pm First they came for the autistics. And nobody seemed to mind. Are they? Or are you prematurely Godwinning? The London Sperm Bank, a private organisation, screens donors for a range of conditions. Which includes autism. The state isn’t rounding autists up (well, it is, but they do need day care if they aren’t high functioning) nor is it stopping the generic British slag breeding with them, nor is it imposing mandatory abortions (or even tests for autism) for embryos diagnosed with the condition. So no, “they” aren’t coming for autists. Hugh December 31, 2015 at 5:18 pm No, not the state, not yet. It’s just the seed of the idea being sown. Not just autism either but a range of fashionable diagnoses. And now my jam’s boiled over, d— it. Tim Worstall December 31, 2015 at 5:20 pm Which is useful proof that you’re not autistic, attempting to multi-task as you are….. The Meissen Bison December 31, 2015 at 5:29 pm Jam? In December? If not autism, maybe Seasonal Affective Disorder of the fruit cage? Hugh December 31, 2015 at 5:42 pm New Year’s Eve in the market, raspberries at give-away prices. A ten-minute job to boil up, normally. Looks like Attention Deficiency Disorder. I wait for the Knock on the Door. Bloke in Germany December 31, 2015 at 6:11 pm Bypassing the couples afflicted with male infertility, are there really women up there incapable of getting knocked up on a Saturday night? I guess there are, to be fair, a few, in which case, who in their right mind would want to donate sperm to them anyway? Shouldn’t you screen out all volunteer donors on that basis? Theophrastus December 31, 2015 at 6:54 pm IanB “The lumpen masses always outbreed the elite minority, and whether they’re yokel agriculturalists or the urban peasantry makes no difference to that.” In a subsistence economy and before our socialist NHS, infant mortality was greater among the lower classes than it was among the upper classes. “People continue to select the best mate available as usual.” False, and increasingly so. The welfare state has allowed the feckless underclass to produce large numbers of children for the rest of us to subsidise. “The elites always believe they are where and what they are because of superior breeding, but that doesn’t make it true.” Good breeding + good upbringing generally results in a type of individual superior to those who breed indiscriminately and neglect their offspring. Ian B December 31, 2015 at 7:13 pm The historic difficulty of the upper classes in producing surviving heirs despite living in the best conditions suggests a rather raggedy gene pool to me. The lower classes on the other hand needed both physical condition and wit to survive and have done so. The “feckless underclass” are vastly overestimated as a proportion of the population, and are hard to define anyway. A few generations of welfare has negligible evolutionary influence; it’s the same gene pool as it was in 1950 (immigration aside). Theophrastus December 31, 2015 at 7:41 pm IanB “The historic difficulty of the upper classes in producing surviving heirs despite living in the best conditions suggests a rather raggedy gene pool to me.” But the problem of surviving heirs in the peasantry — to look after you in your old age — was greater still. “The lower classes on the other hand needed both physical condition and wit to survive and have done so.” All classes needed to be tough to survive in a subsistence economy, As for wit, stoicism and animal cunning are more accurate terms. “The “feckless underclass” are vastly overestimated as a proportion of the population, and are hard to define anyway.” Really? “A few generations of welfare has negligible evolutionary influence; it’s the same gene pool as it was in 1950 (immigration aside).” Epigenetics? Chester Draws December 31, 2015 at 9:28 pm The problem about worrying about “dygenics” is that we aren’t breeding pure dog species, where the characteristics you want are quite specific and you are prepared to take all sorts of horrible defects along the way, provided that they don’t interfere with the “correct” hair type, colour, size etc. “Good” breeding leads to bad genetic mixes, as the rise in Autism in Silicon Valley shows. As humans we need a mix of contradictory abilities — lively intelligence but also placid people, stubbornness but also ability to give way when wrong, humour and seriousness, aggressiveness and passiveness, etc. Then as material circumstances change the mix will drift to fit — but only if there is a mix. We breed out the absolutely bad traits by personal screening, but any that are what the pleased with themselves might call “feckless” are not in that category. You can be absolutely certain that any attempt to “fix” the alleged dysgenics would only make the problem far worse. It always does. That said, you shouldn’t have to have autistic children if you don’t want to, as there is no way austism is helpful. So screening is quite reasonable IMO. So Much For Subtlety December 31, 2015 at 11:50 pm Ian B – “I don’t believe in dysgenics, and I’ve argued this with SMFS certainly and others possibly on this very blog.” Indeed you have. These people, for instance, are doing a sterling job. I appreciate the work they do no end: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dor_Yeshorim But what they are doing is dysgenic. There is no two ways about it. So Much For Subtlety December 31, 2015 at 11:58 pm Ian B – “The historic difficulty of the upper classes in producing surviving heirs despite living in the best conditions suggests a rather raggedy gene pool to me. The lower classes on the other hand needed both physical condition and wit to survive and have done so.” The British Upper class was traditionally very philoprogenic. The Upper Class and the very poor were the last two groups in British society to produce a lot of children. The underclass do not and never have needed wit to reproduce. Theft and prostitution do not require a great deal of intelligence. The respectable poor have. “The “feckless underclass” are vastly overestimated as a proportion of the population, and are hard to define anyway.” That is not the way it looks to me. “A few generations of welfare has negligible evolutionary influence; it’s the same gene pool as it was in 1950 (immigration aside).” I am not so sure. The 50s are too recent for a huge impact to have taken place but immigration has been enormous. Very quietly some people are willing to make a eugenics argument. Gregory Clark’s A Farewell to Alms makes an explicit argument that Britain’s middle and upper classes had more children and so their values and genes spread through out society. It is certainly easy to find people who argue that Jewish communities have been breeding for higher intelligence over the past 2000 years. Although it is likely that that also brings a downside in thinking like Tay-Sachs. So Much For Subtlety January 1, 2016 at 12:21 am Ian B – “The lumpen masses always outbreed the elite minority, and whether they’re yokel agriculturalists or the urban peasantry makes no difference to that.” But that probably didn’t matter before the Grammar schools. As there was no system for selecting the brightest. A smart child was as likely to be the child of a smart farmer as a smart noble. When the grammar schools came along, they removed all the smart poor children from the poor population. The question is whether smart children continue to be born among the poor. Singapore openly says not. They think their education system shifted the population to one ranked by intelligence. The evidence in Britain does seem to imply they might be right – immigrant children do fine in school. White working class children do not. Same schools. “The elites always believe they are where and what they are because of superior breeding, but that doesn’t make it true.” Although for Britain’s middle classes it probably is true even though those middle classes deny it. There is a genetic component to intelligence and the middle class is mainly middle class because of that intelligence. It would be astonishing if all people on the planet were equal in a genetic sense. Some are going to be superior to others. It may be that there are so many genes that contribute to intelligence, and they all need to be just so, that the poor will continue to produce bright children. But it doesn’t seem as if they are. While middle class children continue to be just fine. However it is hard to tell. The famous Marshmellow Test was done with Afro-Caribbean and Indo-Caribbean children. It has usually been interpreted as showing children of African origin aren’t that bright. Before it was thrown into the Memory Hole of politically incorrect science anyway. However it is also true that virtually all the Black children were the products of single mothers and virtually none of the Indian children were. So there may be another cause. However it may be that being a single mother has a genetic cause – very high testosterone levels for instance. So it is hard to know where to start. Roue le Jour January 1, 2016 at 4:38 am SMfS Immigrants do better than native kids in the same schools. Education is a cultural thing and English culture is anti intellectual. (Using the word to mean an intelligent, educated person, not in the leftist sense of an expert in leftist cant.) The English phrase “too clever by half” defies translation into many languages because the concept behind it doesn’t exist. There are some obvious factors at play in the lower birth rate of the higher classes. Middle class children are disproportionately more expensive to produce than lower class children, and for aristos, more than an heir and a spare is an invitation to civil war. Also, a string of bastards is frowned upon these days. We’re told we need immigration because of the falling birthrate. No doubt the government spent oceans of cash and taxed the towering intellects of the day before concluding that raising the birthrate was impossible? Right? Theophrastus January 1, 2016 at 11:35 am CD “You can be absolutely certain that any attempt to “fix” the alleged dysgenics would only make the problem far worse. It always does.” I beg to differ. All we need to do is remove the financial and fiscal incentives that encourage the underclass to reproduce indiscriminately, secure in the knowledge that the taxpayer will pick up the tab. Problem solved. john77 January 1, 2016 at 3:44 pm @ Roue le Jour The British don’t dislike intelligence per se. When I was a kid we looked down on swots but coming top was OK if you didn’t work at it (and fine if you were in the 1st XI as well) – what we despised were the *pseudo-intellectuals*. “Too clever by half” did *not* mean too intelligent. You may not have noticed that “Bobbety” was the elder brother of Lord David Cecil, one of the most intelligent members of his generation (I’d say “leading intellectual” if it wasn’t liable to misinterpretation). What he meant was that Iain MacLeod was the sort of person who could be falsely suspected of cheating at Bridge. That probably doesn’t translate into any other language. Leave a Reply Cancel replyYour email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *Comment Name * Email * Website Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.