But they have enough melanin to qualify as People of Color, don't they? That's huge.
Another, and even bigger, problem that no prominent US politician has ever acknowledged, AFAIK, is dysgenic fertility. Today it occurred to me that the problem could be redressed by political means without curtailing anyone's reproductive freedom, but I don't think there's much chance of it being done.
But they have enough melanin to qualify as People of Color, don't they? That's huge.
Another, and even bigger, problem that no prominent US politician has ever acknowledged, AFAIK, is dysgenic fertility. Today it occurred to me that the problem could be redressed by political means without curtailing anyone's reproductive freedom, but I don't think there's much chance of it being done.
How specifically? By making LARC usage a precondition for welfare access? One would be able to go off of the LARC if one goes off of welfare, or refuse to accept welfare in the first place.
(Sterilized people would not need to use LARC in order to get welfare. And LARC stands for long-acting reversible contraception.)
What I had in mind was also an economic incentive, but for the other side of the problem: sub-replacement procreation by the highly intelligent. Offer a substantial cash grant to anyone submitting proof that he/she is the genetic progenitor of at least two healthy children and has achieved a score above some specified level on a standardized, uniformly administered, and highly g-loaded test. [revised on 12/23/25]
How about also aggressively subsidizing IVF, donor gametes, surrogacy, and maybe embryo selection and (in the future) IVG for everyone who needs it, including gay and single men, especially smart ones, and especially those with low income?
Any of those means would suffice for the purpose of the procreation criterion I had in mind, but I'd limit eligibility to those with proven high intelligence. I didn't say, or mean to imply, that the offspring should be "legitimate" -- i.e. produced by married couples.
Fiscal prudence should be the main limiting factor, but popular acceptance would probably be the foremost concern for politicians contemplating enactment of such a measure. Those two factors would tend to pull in opposite directions, up to a point, as the more exclusive the privilege is the higher the odds against widespread popular support. But on the other hand the more exclusive it is the less it would cost and the better the chances of it passing under the radar screen of popular concern -- as with many current government subsidies and mandates that enrich special-interest minorities, with or without any redeeming public-interest benefit.
Anyway, a subsidy like the one I'm proposing could be doled out by one or more non-governmental organizations, which would bypass the problem of popular acceptance.
But they have enough melanin to qualify as People of Color, don't they? That's huge.
Another, and even bigger, problem that no prominent US politician has ever acknowledged, AFAIK, is dysgenic fertility. Today it occurred to me that the problem could be redressed by political means without curtailing anyone's reproductive freedom, but I don't think there's much chance of it being done.
As for dysgenics, Charles Murray tried to talk about it in the Bell Curve but the mainstream shunned and rejected him.
The book's other co-author, Richard Herrnstein, evaded obloquy by dying prior to its publication. https://psychology.fas.harvard.edu/people/richard-j-herrnstein
Yep, I knew that.
How specifically? By making LARC usage a precondition for welfare access? One would be able to go off of the LARC if one goes off of welfare, or refuse to accept welfare in the first place.
(Sterilized people would not need to use LARC in order to get welfare. And LARC stands for long-acting reversible contraception.)
What I had in mind was also an economic incentive, but for the other side of the problem: sub-replacement procreation by the highly intelligent. Offer a substantial cash grant to anyone submitting proof that he/she is the genetic progenitor of at least two healthy children and has achieved a score above some specified level on a standardized, uniformly administered, and highly g-loaded test. [revised on 12/23/25]
How about also aggressively subsidizing IVF, donor gametes, surrogacy, and maybe embryo selection and (in the future) IVG for everyone who needs it, including gay and single men, especially smart ones, and especially those with low income?
Any of those means would suffice for the purpose of the procreation criterion I had in mind, but I'd limit eligibility to those with proven high intelligence. I didn't say, or mean to imply, that the offspring should be "legitimate" -- i.e. produced by married couples.
Just how high of an intelligence? Triple-digits? So, 100+?
I'd draw the line well to the right of the bell-curve median.
But wouldnтАЩt any improvement in the bell curve still be an achievement?
Yeah, but why (ignoring political expediency) squander taxpayer money on grants for people with IQs just slightly above the median?
Why not start with the smartest, then, and gradually work it down from there to the maximum extent that you can?
Fiscal prudence should be the main limiting factor, but popular acceptance would probably be the foremost concern for politicians contemplating enactment of such a measure. Those two factors would tend to pull in opposite directions, up to a point, as the more exclusive the privilege is the higher the odds against widespread popular support. But on the other hand the more exclusive it is the less it would cost and the better the chances of it passing under the radar screen of popular concern -- as with many current government subsidies and mandates that enrich special-interest minorities, with or without any redeeming public-interest benefit.
Anyway, a subsidy like the one I'm proposing could be doled out by one or more non-governmental organizations, which would bypass the problem of popular acceptance.