Quoted By:
I like the idea of eugenics, but I can see serious issues with the implementation. Compare it to selective breeding of animals for a second. Why does it work so well? First it's generally pretty clear what we want to optimise, at least at a first approximation. Say, if you're a dairy farmer, you want cows that give you more milk. So you measure their milk production, breed those that give you more, and all is as it should be. Second, there's a self-regulatory mechanism in place, typically the market. For example, if you're a dairy farmer and decide to raise cows whose milk tastes like piss, people won't buy your milk, you will go out of business, and your cows will die.
With humans, both issues are thornier. If you gave the autists on this board the power to control breeding, they would do it by IQ taste, and raise a generation of people good at solving picture puzzles and nothing else. If you give it to /pol/, the criteria will be paleness, and we'll be raising anaemics. It's very hard to quantify what it means to be a good human. Arguably the best you could do is use income, on the assumption that in an efficient market people who earn more are more useful to society. But markets aren't efficient, so god knows what you'll get.
Second, how do you regulate this system? If you make the wrong decision and end up with a generation of idiots, it will be up to the idiots to realise that something has gone wrong and fix it, which is a poor plan. I suppose you could rely on interstate competition, with the hope that states with effective eugenics policies will outperform the others, but I can see that going wrong in any one of a hundred ways.
In light of all these difficulties, the furthest I'm willing to go is to refuse child licenses to people financially incapable of raising another child, and perhaps restrict some hereditary disease carriers from breeding.
