Hitler was a vegetarian, so all vegetarians are evil!

Eugenics is smeared and misunderstood. It is a civilized and rational approach to the building of a more humane and intelligent society.

OswaldTheOsprey

http://www.eugenics.net/

Sure, ask George Bernard Shaw, H.G. Wells, Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Margaret Sanger. So were they.

OswaldTheOsprey

Yes, they were, and today they are generally considered incorrect in their support for it, though it seems to be making a comeback, particularly among Darwinian materialists.

Here is another article that raises this point. 

Human race will 'split into two different species'

Perhaps you feel eugenics might prevent this.

Eugenics, as it is commonly understood, is not practical with Humans, and the old style was based on and used pseudo-scientific concepts. You cannot breed humans effectively in any short period of time, ethically, to get a set of characteristics or traits you want.

The concept behind eugenics in general--breeding or modifying organisms for desirable traits in a population--is sound, though. It's basically artificial selection and what we do in animal husbandry. If you do it voluntarily, you lack any sense of control, which makes it even more impractical, even though that would certainly be more ethical.

Neo-liberal eugenics, however, is something different, more practical in it's goals of bettering society, yet it's only vaguely related to Eugenics. That's more along the lines of genetic screening, gene therapy, genetic engineering. There's nothing wrong with encouraging them, but it's not going to make huge population changes quickly. It's more an individual quality of life improvement by removing or manipulating certain traits found desirable or undesirable. It just doesn't involve forced breeding.

Eugenics was an outgrowth of evolutionary thinking and applications in the 19th century by some people, but it was hijacked, again, by pseudo-scientists along the way. However, evolution is hardly to fault, and even if it were tied to it, it doesn't refute evolution one bit.

It's interesting how you assume if someone doesn't like X, then he must like y. That's a non-sequitor. The solution you propose is simply unworkable and bad. That I don't agree with your form of Eugenics doesn't mean anything other than that.

There really is no alternative to "uncontrolled" breeding, as there is no practical programme of going about doing anything by force that is also ethical. Any mass programme that prevented people from breeding would not be worth it. The suffering would be considerable, it wouldn't work in any reasonable time frame, and there's no way to effectively implement it sans a completely totalitarian regime anyway. That's unacceptable. You wouldn't want to live in the world you wish to create. We've been there once already. It's worse than the problem.

It's a non-answer to a problem. The best you can hope for is education, decreasing poverty, and voluntary methods. Poverty and education are the primary problems with cities and the urban ghetto. What do you suggest? Killing undesirable? Forcing them into sterilization? Locking them all up? Do you know how much suffering that will create? How much that will cost? You haven't thought this through.

Basically. You need to increase education, decrease poverty. Technology and medical procedures, including healthcare, must be made available to the masses so they can better themselves. Treating your population like farm animals isn't going to fix the problem, and it will likely make it worse.