Posts
Via Meteuphoric, a story on Project Prevention, an organization that pays drug addicts $300 to be sterilized.
As I commented there, all the evidence I’m aware of tells us that existing fertility patterns are dysgenic: by measures of intelligence, earning power, education, and general got-it-togetherness, the best parents are more likely to limit their own fecudity, while the worst are more likely to let sh!t happen all the way to the delivery room. Thus, as Steve Sailer has conclusively demonstrated, a non-targeted “eugenics” program like abortion tends to keep those with the most going for them from becoming parents rather than those with the least.
Arguably, this would be true within a targeted; population as well: drug addicts with the most potential would be most likely to avail themselves of Project Prevention’s offer. But, also arguably, the drug-addicted population is sufficiently dysfunctional that even culling the “best” of them from the gene pool would still; be eugenic by the median standards of the non-addicted population.
So . . . before I get out my checkbook, can anyone tell me why this program might have unintended consequences?
6 comments:
The end of the world as we know it scenario arives and 8 of of 10 surviving males are sterile due to needing $300 for a fix 10 years ago.
Though not really a bad thing since I will be among the 2 out of 10. The others can work the fields.
You raise an interesting point: in terms of birth prevention, sterilizing a male of our species has a smaller marginal impact that sterilizing a female. That said, the overwhelming participation in Project Prevention is female by some 1200/35.
Prof Hale - "The end of the world as we know it scenario arives and 8 of of 10 surviving males are sterile due to needing $300 for a fix 10 years ago."
Not to worry, they're aiming this at women.
From their web site:
Our Mission
Project Prevention offers cash incentives to women that are addicted to drugs and/or alcohol to use long-term or permanent birth control.
Personally, I'm torn. This sounds like Margaret Sanger's wet-dream; complete with subtle (or, not) overtures to her deeply racist intentions.
Still, the idea of spending $300 (even $3,000) to keep unfit women from having children which are going to cost society as much as $30,000/yr to "deal with" seems like a good "investment"; and doesn't involve providing endless abortions in the process.
The project is too obvious in its purpose, aims, and methods. It will never make a serious dent in birth-rates.
It will never make a serious dent in birth-rates.
OTOH, the marginal impact of sending in a donation probably exceeds what I usually do, which is bitch 'n' moan on my blog!
Haha, true enough (though don't let this keep you from blogging). However, I presume a blog post doesn't cost $300.
Post a Comment