A merit-based immigration policy vs. a voluntary eugenics policy in regards to reproduction?
  • Xanatos
    98
    Apologies if this post is offensive, but here goes:

    I've tended to notice that some or even many of the people who support a merit-based immigration policy balk at the idea of the state having a voluntary (key word here being "voluntary") eugenics policy in regards to reproduction: As in, encouraging (through incentives) the best and brightest to breed more while also encouraging (again, through incentives) the dullest to breed less. Basically, I'm wondering if there is a disconnect here considering that a merit-based immigration policy also functions similarly to eugenics: A state is choosing new residents and eventually citizens on the basis of desirable traits, with those who fail to qualify often being condemned to lifetimes of poverty, misery, and/or oppression. One could defend a merit-based immigration policy as being in the national interest, but one could say the same thing about a voluntary eugenics policy, and a merit-based immigration policy strikes me as being notoriously more inhumane than a voluntary eugenics policy, where people can simply refuse the incentives that are offered to them and thus have large/small families at their pleasure. I understand arguments about low-skilled and/or dull immigrants being a burden on the social safety net, but one could make the exact same argument about low-skilled and/or dull natives; thus, it seems rather irrational to worry about mass immigration-caused dysgenics but not about fertility-caused dysgenics.

    Anyway, what do you think? It just seems strange for people to say "Oh, how exactly can we trust the government to decide what desirable traits we want in our future citizenry?" while at the same time being willing to do just this in regards to merit-based immigration. The way that I see it, if the state can identify which immigrants it wants more of and which immigrants it wants less of, then it can also identify which natives it wants to breed more (again, through incentives) and which natives it wants to breed less (once again, through incentives). Being given financial incentives to have extra children--or less children--doesn't strike me as being anywhere near as bad as being condemned to a lifetime of poverty, misery, and/or oppression simply because you're too dull, low-skilled, and/or old.
    Xanatos Options
  • Xanatos
    98
    To elaborate:

    I don't see a cardinal difference between saying these two things:

    "We want more people coming here who can contribute and who are not going to be burdens, and we're capable of determining with pretty good accuracy which immigrants are likely to be net contributors and which ones are likely to be net burdens."

    "We want more people being born who will be able to contribute and who are not going to be burdens, and we're capable of determining with pretty good accuracy which people are likely to have smart children and which people are likely to have dull children, with smart children being much more likely to be net contributors during their lifetimes than dull children are. We should thus encourage people who are likely to have smart children to have more children while also encouraging people who are likely to have dull children to curb their fertility."
    Xanatos Options
  • Xanatos
    98
    And having less poor people (as a percentage of the total population) in future generations would be beneficial for future generations of poor people as well since it would mean that the country would be capable of having a more generous social safety net. A country's economic prosperity in large part depends on its average IQ, after all, which will go up in this scenario.
    Xanatos Options
  • Down The Rabbit Hole
    530
    ↪Xanatos


    Good question.

    I agree that there is a double standard. However, a lot of those that are opposed to immigration would also be opposed to "benefit scroungers" reproducing, but as we already control immigration to some degree, see this as having a better chance of political success than eugenics.
    Down The Rabbit Hole Options
  • T Clark
    13.9k
    I've tended to notice that some or even many of the people who support a merit-based immigration policy balk at the idea of the state having a voluntary (key word here being "voluntary") eugenics policy in regards to reproduction: As in, encouraging (through incentives) the best and brightest to breed more while also encouraging (again, through incentives) the dullest to breed less. — Xanatos

    Some thoughts:

    "Merit-based" just means the advantaged, your "best and brightest," get more advantages and the less advantaged get fewer. Let's reward people for being rewarded. That might be ok for an immigration policy. It's unfair I guess, but it's unfair to people who aren't our citizens. For biological engineering it's different. The government has an obligation to look out for everyone, not just the most fortunate.

    It won't work. The only mass attempt to control the demographics of a country I know of is China and their one-child policy. It's been a disaster. Also - there is zero chance the policy would be managed equitably.

    You say "A state is choosing new residents and eventually citizens on the basis of desirable traits, with those who fail to qualify often being condemned to lifetimes of poverty, misery, and/or oppression." Do you have any evidence to show this is true?

    And just what are these desirable traits you speak of? I'm sure intelligence as measured by IQ testing is on the list. You must know the controversy over whether those tests are accurate and fair. What else?

    The likely effect of the eugenics policy you describe will be to decrease the country's birth rate. Maybe you think that's a good thing, but demographers are saying that the biggest population and economic problem for the US and all the developed world in the next 100 years will be population decline.

    You say "because you're too dull, low-skilled, and/or old." I don't think there will be any problem with old people having too many more children.

    I think your characterization - "best and brightest" and "dullest" says everything that needs to be said. You show your contempt for poor people, perhaps minorities, who are obviously, from your point of view, among the dullest.
    T Clark Options
  • Moliere
    4.7k
    I've tended to notice that some or even many of the people who support a merit-based immigration policy balk at the idea of the state having a voluntary (key word here being "voluntary") eugenics policy in regards to reproduction: As in, encouraging (through incentives) the best and brightest to breed more while also encouraging (again, through incentives) the dullest to breed less. Basically, I'm wondering if there is a disconnect here considering that a merit-based immigration policy also functions similarly to eugenics: A state is choosing new residents and eventually citizens on the basis of desirable traits, with those who fail to qualify often being condemned to lifetimes of poverty, misery, and/or oppression — Xanatos

    The reason eugenics does not work, scientifically speaking, is that it's false.

    All morality aside -- we are not determined by our parental genetics. So regardless of why people might have an opinion on immigration, you're kind of asking people who love discriminating against people on the basis of merit to also love discriminating against people who are "dullest" -- whatever that might mean (I'd define it so my enemies are dull, and my friends are bright)
    Moliere Options
  • Art48
    477
    It just seems strange for people to say "Oh, how exactly can we trust the government to decide what desirable traits we want in our future citizenry?" while at the same time being willing to do just this in regards to merit-based immigration. — Xanatos

    I'd say an important difference is that merit-based immigration (ideally) would look at present, demonstrated needs and try to fill them. "There are not enough doctors so let's expand medical education and fill all the seats, even if we need to let bright immigrants in our medical schools."

    Desirable traits for people is a much deeper question. Should the state try to engineer people? If so, what traits should be re-enforced and what traits should be discouraged? Much tougher questions.
    Art48 Options
  • T Clark
    13.9k
    Desirable traits for people is a much deeper question. Should the state try to engineer people? If so, what traits should be re-enforced and what traits should be discouraged? Much tougher questions. — Art48

    Yes. I agree.
    T Clark Options
  • Tom Storm
    9.1k
    Basically, I'm wondering if there is a disconnect here considering that a merit-based immigration policy also functions similarly to eugenics: — Xanatos

    There's some thematic overlap but I think they are different. In the first instance we are (ethics aside) selecting people to add value to society (subject to certain values) and in the second we are deciding what qualifies as a human being. The first is a pragmatic response to situational exigencies, the second is part of a totalizing metanarrative about the nature of the human.
    Tom Storm Options
  • Xanatos
    98
    ↪T Clark
    "You say "A state is choosing new residents and eventually citizens on the basis of desirable traits, with those who fail to qualify often being condemned to lifetimes of poverty, misery, and/or oppression." Do you have any evidence to show this is true?"

    Do you deny that developing countries are, on average, poorer, more miserable, and more oppressive than developed countries are, with the difference between them being quite stark in some cases?
    Xanatos Options
  • T Clark
    13.9k
    Do you deny that developing countries are, on average, poorer, more miserable, and more oppressive than developed countries are, with the difference between them being quite stark in some cases? — Xanatos

    I think people try to come to this country for economic opportunity. They think they will be better off here, and it seems reasonable to think they may be right. That's not the same as what you wrote.
    T Clark Options
  • Agent Smith
    9.5k
    It doesn't look like merit-based anything is going to work, at all, right @180 Proof? Because we all know ...



    :chin:
    Agent Smith Options
  • 180 Proof
    15.3k
    ↪Agent Smith
    :up:
    180 Proof Options
  • Xanatos
    98
    ↪T Clark
    Well, Yeah, that's fleeing poverty and misery in their home countries.
    Xanatos Options
  • T Clark
    13.9k
    Well, Yeah, that's fleeing poverty and misery in their home countries. — Xanatos

    So, if I move from Boston to Cleveland, where my brother lives, to see if I can get a better job, I am fleeing poverty and misery.
    T Clark Options
  • Xanatos
    98
    ↪T Clark
    Boston isn't that poor by global standards, but in a relative sense, in comparison to Cleveland, Yes, though the case would be much more compelling if you fled from a place that was poor by global standards.
    Xanatos Options
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment