Worldly Provincialism: German Anthropology

[Leader of the Barbarian Juns]

Worldly Provincialism: German Anthropology in the Age of Empire

Norbert Dannhaeuser
Texas A&M University

This collection of essays, mostly written by historians, focuses on the 19th- and early 20th-century history of German anthropology. The editors hope to correct the continued underappreciation of the importance of early German research.

German anthropology has followed a path different from that of the Anglo-American (and French) tradition. Germany’s late formation as a nation-state (1871) and its acquisition of colonies only in the 1880s partly explain this, as does its defeat during World War I and the impact of Nazism. During most of the 19th century German anthropology was characterized by liberal humanism, interested in documenting “cultural plurality and historic specificity” (p. 1) and in better understanding the German Volksgeist (genius or spirit)—in contrast to Anglo-American cultural evolutionism. Franz Boas subsequently introduced this liberal, historical perspective to U.S. anthropology, and the British turned to structural-functionalism. In Germany the discipline adopted an objective and deductive scientific stance that stressed cultural differences linked to environmental and racial contrasts.

The editors point out that although the colonial experience was important to German anthropology—both providing locations in which to work and influencing methods and objectives—it was not the only contextual factor shaping the discipline. Intellectual developments “from within the German context” also mattered (p. 10). They emphasize that there was no “seamless march toward” anthropology as a race science from the late 19th century onward (p. 28). The historical situation during that period, as shown by this volume’s contributions, was more complex.

The essays are not explicitly arranged thematically. The first two focus on 19th-century German anthropology. Harry Liebersohn describes how Pacific natives were perceived by German explorers–scientists Adelbert Chamisso early in the 19th century and Augustin Krämer at the turn of the 20th century. He indicates how their view of natives—the former naive romantic, the latter more practical scientific—contrasted because of their respective historical contexts. This case also “suggests a distinctive German cultural mission” (p. 32) that diverged from the longer Anglo and French colonial history. Matti Bunzl examines the late 19th-century journal, Zeitschrift fürVölkerpsychologie und Sprachwissenschaft, and the degree to which it (and folk psychology) reflected German–Jewish relations. The journal was a liberal Jewish undertaking that, among other things, tried to show that Jews could integrate into the German cultural tradition without loss of their identity. Culture, to the Jewish editors of the journal (Steinthal and Lazarus), is malleable, a view that became less appreciated as the 19th century progressed.

The following two essays make the 19th- to 20th-century transformation of German anthropology their principal theme. H. Glenn Penny takes the “rise and fall of Bastian’s museum” in Berlin (p. 90)—the most important late 19th-century ethnographic museum in Germany—to illustrate the shift from the inductive perspective that stressed cultural diversity in a unitary humanity to one that emphasized human cultural differences within geographic and racial constraints. Sierra Bruckner examines commercial ethnographic displays in which troupes of natives toured the countryside. At first praised by the anthropological community as encouraging the education of the bourgeois populace, these displays received increasing criticism in the 20th century by the new generation of anthropologists for seeking to satisfy the entertainment needs of an increasingly proletarian audience.

The growth of racial science in German anthropology in the late 19th and early 20th centuries is the subject of essays by Andrew Zimmerman, Andrew Evans, and Pascal Grosse. Zimmerman traces the history of German anthropometry in colonial Africa and elsewhere. Because of the resistance of local subjects, he notes the tendency among scholars to rely on measurements of bodily remains of natives shipped to Germany. He addresses the ethical issues involved, while arguing that the objectification of the natives for such scientific examinations easily led to racial interpretations. Evans concerns himself with anthropometry conducted within World War I POW camps operated by Germans and Austrians. He finds that the context of these prisons and the emotions of the Great War encouraged a “conflation of race, nation, and Volk” (p. 20) and its application not only to overseas natives but also to Europeans considered enemies. Grosse traces the acclimatization debate. Could Europeans, especially Germans, physically adapt to the tropics? Initially, German anthropologists answered negatively. As the call for German settlements in the newly acquired colonies grew, however, the argument shifted and eventually ended with the eugenic position that selective breeding could create tropically adapted Germans.

Rainer Buschmann and Robert Gordon focus on the relation between the German colonial experience and anthropology. Buschmann describes a relatively positive dimension of this relation by taking the case of Albert Hahl, governor of German New Guinea. Frustrated by the tendency of German anthropological expeditions to concentrate on collecting material culture and measuring body parts, he advocated the need to study current conditions among natives through actual fieldwork (anticipating Bronislaw Malinowski) and by adopting a broader ethnographic perspective. This would improve the science and be more relevant for colonial governance. Although some anthropologists responded (most notably Richard Thurnwald), ultimately Hahl’s call fell on deaf ears. Gordon paints a more negative picture of the interface between colonialism and anthropology. German settlers in German South-West Africa at first wanted to eliminate or exploit the “racially inferior” local Bushmen population. When the region became a mandated territory of South Africa after World War I and scientific interest in the Bushmen increased, these same settlers used the natives to ensure their own cultural survival, advertising their “special knowledge” about the natives to the scientific community, while retaining their racial bias even well after World War II.

In the final contribution to this volume, Suzanne Marchand reaches beyond Germany to cover German-speaking anthropology, specifically in Austria. She examines the role of religion, a dimension, the editors lament, that so far has been neglected by historians of anthropology. The author identifies the critical role of Catholicism in Austria and the absence of colonies in accounting for the divergence of Austrian from German anthropology. Another factor was the work of the energetic Father Schmidt. During the first half of the 20th century Schmidt became the pivotal figure in Austrian anthropology, his mission to document, by means of the diffusion-based Kulturkreislehre, that “pygmies” (p. 288) in Africa and Southeast Asia had monotheistic traditions that became corrupted in more complex societies. His was a conservative but not racist anthropology, demonstrating that the racist paradigm was not an inevitable outcome of anthropology in the German-speaking world.

This is a rich set of insightful essays. Scholars interested in the history of anthropology in general, not only that of Germany, will find this work of considerable value. Three critical points are worth mentioning. First, the editors and some of the contributors seem to favor the “Counter-Enlightenment” (p. 11) humanistic project of 19th-century German anthropology with its stress on cultural plurality, pure native traditions expressed through their individual Volksgeister, and the disruptive influence of the West. They fail to point out that this relativist and essentialist view of culture played nicely into the hands of those who later linked culture to race. The notion of “Volk,” as containing some lasting Geist, or spiritual essence, was one generally shared by both 19th-century liberal anthropologists in Germany and 20th-century Nazi ideologues. By contrast, classical cultural evolution anchored in the idea of psychic unity may have been less subject to such distortion. Second, although the editors and some of the contributors establish a link between 19th-century German liberal anthropology and the early Boasian tradition in the United States, they fail to point out the extension of this link (via Ruth Benedict) into contemporary U.S. anthropology in the form of hermeneutic anthropology and cultural essentialism of Clifford Geertz and others. Finally, maps of German colonial Africa and the Pacific would have been of considerable help, and the index does not do justice to the scope of this volume.

www.aaanet.org/aes/bkreviews/result_print.cfm?bk_id=3166

[Agrippa]

That article is ok so far, sounds relatively objective and could be discussed, no objections from my side. Physical anthropology, racial typology and population biological goes fluently over in genetics and finally ethnology and cultural studies are something different. Boas is was an ideologist which had no idea about racial variation.

[annienormanna]

agrippa said:

That article is ok so far, sounds relatively objective and could be discussed, no objections from my side. Physical anthropology, racial typology and population biological goes fluently over in genetics and finally ethnology and cultural studies are something different. Boas is was an ideologist which had no idea about racial variation.

But then, you are what you eat, breath, and drink. And each of these things will have a genetic bearing as well.
Could we then blame the German and Russian failures on poor nutrition as it relates mutagenic/tetragenic processes in neurologic development? Inherited succeptabilities is something you may not wish to address.

[Agrippa]

annienormanna said:

agrippa said:

That article is ok so far, sounds relatively objective and could be discussed, no objections from my side. Physical anthropology, racial typology and population biological goes fluently over in genetics and finally ethnology and cultural studies are something different. Boas is was an ideologist which had no idea about racial variation.

Two different things:
Modification, f.e. poor health and growth because of malnutrition.
Selection, f.e. low energy types selected which could survive better, with less defects and problems or even really just survive, with the same level of energy.

Two different things. Who implied that nutrition directly changed the racial type? Only via selection since modification is reversible...

Me for sure not.

[annienormanna]

agrippa said:

annienormanna said:

agrippa said:

That article is ok so far, sounds relatively objective and could be discussed, no objections from my side. Physical anthropology, racial typology and population biological goes fluently over in genetics and finally ethnology and cultural studies are something different. Boas is was an ideologist which had no idea about racial variation.

Two different things:
Modification, f.e. poor health and growth because of malnutrition.
Selection, f.e. low energy types selected which could survive better, with less defects and problems or even really just survive, with the same level of energy.

Two different things. Who implied that nutrition directly changed the racial type? Only via selection since modification is reversible...

Me for sure not.

On the genetic level, your understanding of race would posit that a race would develop succeptabilities. And clearly it's so- sickle cell anemia, taye-sachs disease, etc.

In biogenetics, long term exposure within a biosphere would elucidate negative and positive outcomes on every level of physical existence, including neurological components. As biospheres shift, which they do, new biodynamics come into play, shifting what were once negative outcomes to positive ones. In immunology, the study of biological response to environmental conditions, we see this played out all the time. Across the human spectrum we note things like histamine response to proteins interracting with mast cells. And we are just learning about the role of prions.

Nothing you posit accounts for any of this. A "weakness" can be a strength. Histamine production insures genetic survival by defeating parasites, while it may incapacitate an individual given another set of environmental conditions. By your logic we are *required* to examine the role of race and immunological predispositions. sickle cell is dederived from an adaptation against malaria that caucasians don't carry, except as Thessalemia, Coolie's Anemia. etc.
These weaknesses are necessary for species survival, and by your logic racial survival, as well.

[annienormanna]

[quote author=agrippa board=anythinggoes

To continue,

High incidence of genetic human transmissible spongiform encephalopathies in Italy
Ladogana et al. Neurology.2005; 64: 1592-1597.

Within a given population eating, breathing, and drinking the same thing, we find tendencies towards geo-specific prionic pathogens affecting the brain. In many cases, there are no specific remedies, yet there are behavioral consequences i.e., when prions do manifest a prionic disorder, which is a rare occurence.
Yet like an extreme picture, neural pathogens also follow gradients of affectiveness:

biology.usgs.gov/cro/CWD7-02-02.htm

To wit, the extent of human collective interaction and it's isolation in closed populations can and will affect the "progress" of the collective in negative and positive ways, from a macro view (pandemic) to a micro view and all steps inbetween.

So, yeah. I can imagine a bunch of sick f*cks getting together and harming the people of Central and Eastern Europe because their "tribe, " their "people" are diseased in ways that can't be found from reading bumps on the head or measuring a skull with callipers. And that the afore mentioned articles throw a wet blanket on confusing form, function, and aesthetics with "health."

Your move, Watson.

[Agrippa]

These weaknesses are necessary for species survival, and by your logic racial survival, as well.

The difference between progressive traits and regional adaptation is, that the first is generally in much more possible situations and conditions advantageous.
Furthermore what you said is a good reason to see the value of different racial types in different regions. But there is a difference between pure regional adaptation or negative trends.

F.e. Homo floriensis was better adapted for a very specific environment as was Australopithecus robustus or Homo neandertalensis, but finally they lacked a progressive versatile character which lead to their extinction. For the general human development the intraspecific group and individual selection is of highest value, leads to the most promising strategies, whereas sheer regional-environmental adaptation (alone) leads in most cases to long term degeneration.

So it would be like a system which would work cheaper and cheaper while losing effectiveness, whereas with high group and individual selection, like it was the case in progressive types, even under hunger and diseases progressive traits might be more advantageous because the winning group will finally just take all ressources and those which would be in theory better adapted to a given (for human development negative) environment will be pushed away or eliminated.
This leads to higher development.

Furthermore even if its about immune variants, there are more "primitive", less evolved reactions which would be in just a very, very small number of cases better (f.e. the immunology we saw in many pre-Colombian Indianids) but in almost all cases worse - in such a comparison the superiority of one trait is obvious.

Furthermore such small advantages can be produced by modern techniques anyway, but if its about physical and psychic traits which are more desirable and generally advantageous, they are a topic on its own.

[annienormanna]

agrippa said:

These weaknesses are necessary for species survival, and by your logic racial survival, as well.

The difference between progressive traits and regional adaptation is, that the first is generally in much more possible situations and conditions advantageous.
Furthermore what you said is a good reason to see the value of different racial types in different regions. But there is a difference between pure regional adaptation or negative trends.

We would need a statistical base covering centuries of observations to see whether it's race specific adaptation or general adaptation. Would we be dealing with analogous adaptation, which would limit race as a factor? We could posit racial congruence based on additional benefits measurably received and limited to the primary adaptation of the race in question.

[/quote]
F.e. Homo floriensis was better adapted for a very specific environment as was Australopithecus robustus or Homo neandertalensis, but finally they lacked a progressive versatile character which lead to their extinction. For the general human development the intraspecific group and individual selection is of highest value, leads to the most promising strategies, whereas sheer regional-environmental adaptation (alone) leads in most cases to long term degeneration.
[/quote]

I would term it specialization. The logical extent of all specialization is maladaptation once a shift in biodynamic forces come into play. I suppose this can be integrated into a discussion of the fall of neanderthalis, but I am unsure whether or not their primary demise was as much to do with proactive extermination by sapiens sapiens. Our species is not fond of competition with other species.

[/quote]
So it would be like a system which would work cheaper and cheaper while losing effectiveness, whereas with high group and individual selection, like it was the case in progressive types, even under hunger and diseases progressive traits might be more advantageous because the winning group will finally just take all ressources and those which would be in theory better adapted to a given (for human development negative) environment will be pushed away or eliminated.
This leads to higher development.
[/quote]

The key word is "might." I dont think higher development is a necessary condition, but rather continuous, even lateral development. Nor does this rule out regression.


[/quote]
Furthermore even if its about immune variants, there are more "primitive", less evolved reactions which would be in just a very, very small number of cases better (f.e. the immunology we saw in many pre-Colombian Indianids) but in almost all cases worse - in such a comparison the superiority of one trait is obvious.
[/quote]

I would need more examples to consider this. The culling of populations via pathogen contagion is not always progressive, though clealy adaptive, i.e. Beubonic plague in Europe, where the possibility of progession is undermined by gross natural selection. A cursory examination of social development in Europe pre/post palgue shows a continuity of development despite a profound loss of poulation. Contemporaneous reevaluation led to a shift in world view leading to intellectual development, the Rennaisance. However the term itself is an indicator of a preceding degeneration, and a thousand year recovery. A degeneration caused, in part, by the incursion of less developed, regionally adapted peoples. The Plague was blamed on "the Jews" among other things, but as a people natural selection had already determined exposure and outcome. The Levants had already been exposed and culled. What is impossible to determine is the potential, unknown loss of progressive outcomes in the culled population. We are left, ultimately, with burying the dead and hoping for a better day.

[Agrippa]

We would need a statistical base covering centuries of observations to see whether it's race specific adaptation or general adaptation. Would we be dealing with analogous adaptation, which would limit race as a factor? We could posit racial congruence based on additional benefits measurably received and limited to the primary adaptation of the race in question.

Race specific adaptation can be both generalised (progressive) or local specialisation, even worst - small niche adaptation (be it ecological, social etc.)

I would term it specialization. The logical extent of all specialization is maladaptation once a shift in biodynamic forces come into play.

Indeed, but whereas the one sidedness of total reduction, total infantilisation, total saving like in floriensies or the one sided tendency of Australopithecus was from the beginning, if compared with more progressive tendencies in Hominisation, doomed to fail. They had never a chance, beside surviving on the lowest possible level in a small area of retreat while more progressive forms...

The key word is "might." I dont think higher development is a necessary condition, but rather continuous, even lateral development. Nor does this rule out regression.

I know that, thats why I want that humans plan future, to avoid regression or even extinction because of negative trends both in the socio-cultural and biological area.
Its about the benefit for the individuals (better life, higher potential), group, species and ecosystem. Evolution is blind, if it would lead into a blind alley for mankind, mankind should use its main strength, reason and intelligence, to change the course. And modern (especially Liberal) civilisation is compared with the situation of f.e. the Bronze Age of Europe or Asia contraselective and leads to negative trends without Eugenic (positive and negative) measures.

Some selective pressures lead to anagenese, to higher development, whereas others can lead to one sided degeneration, probably advantageous for the moment, but in every case not as promising as progressive tendencies.

I would need more examples to consider this. The culling of populations via pathogen contagion is not always progressive, though clealy adaptive, i.e. Beubonic plague in Europe, where the possibility of progession is undermined by gross natural selection. A cursory examination of social development in Europe pre/post palgue shows a continuity of development despite a profound loss of poulation. Contemporaneous reevaluation led to a shift in world view leading to intellectual development, the Rennaisance. However the term itself is an indicator of a preceding degeneration, and a thousand year recovery. A degeneration caused, in part, by the incursion of less developed, regionally adapted peoples. The Plague was blamed on "the Jews" among other things, but as a people natural selection had already determined exposure and outcome. The Levants had already been exposed and culled. What is impossible to determine is the potential, unknown loss of progressive outcomes in the culled population. We are left, ultimately, with burying the dead and hoping for a better day.

In fact lead diseases often to generally negative tendencies because one sided selection might be the result. F.e. Malaria might kill the best individuals and people which just have a specific immunological advantage, which is from a general perspective even negative, survive - negative selection - for human development another way of adapting would have been better without losing generally positive individuals and feature combinations but still being able to cope with the problem.
F.e. a stupid, dwarfish, ugly, psychopathic and weak individual which has by chance a immune variant X survives, whereas a highly progressive, intelligent, tall, attractive, physically strong and idealistic individual dies, because he had the variant Y which couldnt stand disease Z.
Well, in the past only long term selection was the only possible way to adapt, even for the most progressive types with very high losses. Natural selection is blind, evolution is blind, its just about coincidences. But from a general human perspective a planned approach and favouring the most promising variants is both from the individual and collective perspective the only rational solution.
F.e. in the future the most progressive types would simply get "a genetic update" which would make them immune - thats the future if humans dont fail, if humans became what they should be and reason will prevail.

So I know how evolution works, but humans have a tool in their fight for survival other animals dont have, reason and intelligence. They should use it to become more than they are and not trying to be more like the lower animals like its the case now...at least for many, many people if not the majority.

[annienormanna]

F.e. a stupid, dwarfish, ugly, psychopathic and weak individual which has by chance a immune variant X survives, whereas a highly progressive, intelligent, tall, attractive, physically strong and idealistic individual dies, because he had the variant Y which couldnt stand disease Z.

Such an individual would not carry such a gene set for very long- they would be an end line in natural selection, perhaps breeding within like type before systemic collapse of the very helix. However, Dr. Stephen Hawking is an asset despite his own liabilities.


Well, in the past only long term selection was the only possible way to adapt, even for the most progressive types with very high losses. Natural selection is blind, evolution is blind, its just about coincidences. But from a general human perspective a planned approach and favouring the most promising variants is both from the individual and collective perspective the only rational solution.

And here is where the individual counts and their value to the greater good is measured. Hawking is more valuable at this given moment and for the future than mere genetic cattle.

Before embarking on a plan one must be a bit more careful about the details, no matter how careful one may imagine themselves to be.


F.e. in the future the most progressive types would simply get "a genetic update" which would make them immune - thats the future if humans dont fail, if humans became what they should be and reason will prevail.

Or both you and I are transitional sapiens superior and reason will never present itself to those who don't posess the capability, inherently.

So I know how evolution works, but humans have a tool in their fight for survival other animals dont have, reason and intelligence. They should use it to become more than they are and not trying to be more like the lower animals like its the case now...at least for many, many people if not the majority.

Many, many people are lower order. I can assure you the good sense resides in me to excersize capabilities necessary to fend them off.




[/quote]

[nockwasright]

agrippa said:

So I know how evolution works, but humans have a tool in their fight for survival other animals dont have, reason and intelligence. They should use it to become more than they are and not trying to be more like the lower animals like its the case now...at least for many, many people if not the majority.

Seems to me you both overprice intelligence at evolutionary and individual level.

Intelligence has been an evolutionary tool for humans, but proved good only up to a point. It never got us near the level of ants, or rats.

Intelligence is not and never was the first weapon of the individual to emerge within the society, let alone for having more children.

The trait that gives more chance to prevail within human society is the will to impose yourself. Being extrovert is much more important than being intelligent. Political leaders of present and past, big enterpreneurs, people who rule the world, hardly ever hit the 120 IQ wall. They surround themselves with intelligent people, but such people never really get to the top.

Then if the individual's aim in life is to live a decent and happy life, intelligence is non relevant at all to his aim.

[tictactoe]

agrippa said:

That article is ok so far, sounds relatively objective and could be discussed, no objections from my side. Physical anthropology, racial typology and population biological goes fluently over in genetics and finally ethnology and cultural studies are something different. Boas is was an ideologist which had no idea about racial variation.

I'm less interested in the past. How is the situation of anthropology in todays germany? What do you think?

[Agrippa]

I wrote an essay about my personal experiences on Skadi - in German - you could use babelfish
However, from a general perspective I think that there are good progresses in some areas (evolutionary psychology, human ethology, ecological-human concepts etc.) and a nice standard about Hominid evolution, whereas population and racial differences are something which cant be discussed objectively neither with professors nor students - its too ideological and leftist-liberal pressure omnipresent, hot potato so to say and some even want to simply ignore it for ideological reasons to not endanger "liberal progresses"...

forum.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=13364

[Agrippa]

I wrote a longer answer first but this was lost in the www...

annienormanna said:

Such an individual would not carry such a gene set for very long- they would be an end line in natural selection, perhaps breeding within like type before systemic collapse of the very helix. However, Dr. Stephen Hawking is an asset despite his own liabilities.

And here is where the individual counts and their value to the greater good is measured. Hawking is more valuable at this given moment and for the future than mere genetic cattle.

Absolutely agreed though this is no argument against my Eugenic concept.
I wrote this as an answer if its about subrace and Eugenic and Eugenic measures in general on Skadi:
forum.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=44321&page=2

Indeed - and there might be other correlations too. However, I just pointed out that the feature for itself is of no great importance especially if compared with others. A generally progressive, attractive, healthy, efficient, intelligent individual with a positive psychic combination would be not really worse if having a round skull and an individual which has nothing of that would be not that much better because he has a long skull.

As for the other things: I dont think thats necessary nor something I would commend simply because it would be inacceptable for the most people and nothing necessary at all. Furthermore even very positive males can have defects, negative recessive traits etc. and the praenatal selection and correction is therefore crucial for all people. But still I agree that the most positive individuals should get more children, simple as that. There are different possibilities doing that - what you said is not really necessary though I wouldnt have something against progressive males having more females - if they manage it, thats up to the individual, I just wouldnt constrict and rather support it. The state should, if its about such things, rather try to encourage positive measures, even with a certain pressure (social, status, economic, education, information, propaganda etc.), but not by really coercing the individual if its not ABSOLUTELY necessary. And as I said, the average is not that bad and finally most individuals have positive traits as well - its more about selecting them. Just think about the great differences you sometimes encounter if looking at siblings! Ranging from perfection to an absolute catastrophe in the same family, with the same parents!
I would compare the difference between corrigible and incorrible individuals with "the book example" since a genome is basically of a similar character:

A book which has a great content, is fantastic to read and tells you something of significance but has some flaws in grammer, orthography and print.

Another book might be without obvious flaws, its correct if its about grammer, orthography and print but its content is uninteresting, has not logic and tells you only things which are of no importance.

In the past the first was more dramatic - just compare Stephen Hawkings life. He had very good sides, but just one dramatic defect - still it would have been great if he would have had children with all of his features - except the defect he had. Thats what praental selection and correction could perform.

Whereas the other category, the category with no obvious flaws but without any significance will be even more problematic on the long run since "correction" would mean to write "new genome" ("book"). Thats what finally race is to a large extend about in the far future in my opinion, it gives a population, a group, the stable basis, the starting position for future developments - mostly done by Eugenics obviously.
If you look at a negative base you would have to change much more to even reach the same level of a progressive race - which is even more risky from the technical and human point, it would change the character of a not as evolved racial type dramatically. I could say non-progressive and one sided types are thousands and thousands of years behind or have taken the "wrong branching" long time ago.

Just think about it, from a naturally grown European base, by just selecting (even voluntary programs would be enough if the conditions are positive - see above and in other threads) and correcting praenatal for high efficiency, progressive and generally positive features, you would change in just some generations even more than by just letting progressive males have more women. You would keep a positive genetic and phenotypical variation - which could be useful in certain extreme situations again, but get rid of all lower and negative tendencies. That would be much easier to accept for the people and much more efficient - yet still human and free in its execution. Everybody could have children, his own, his own family, but only his/her best features will be given to his/her children! Which individual with good education and information, group orientation and individual interests as well could, if deciding rationally, against that?

Obviously only pseudo-religious, affective and mislead individuals could be against such measures. The state and physicians responsible for the execution should be "conservative" if its about the basic rules, which means only those features should be selected and this should be recommended to the potential parents which negative sides are proven. We shouldnt decrease variation where it is not necessary in my opinion.
Positive Eugenics, the encouragement of positive-progressive individuals is something different, here being more experimental wouldnt be as harmful as long as the basic advantage is visible and proven. But thats something I already mentioned above.

And again another matter is the potential selection of a leadership for which much higher levels of selection and phenotypical forming, education, social environment are necessary to keep and elevate a certain standard! Because this leadership, selected in a long term process, has much more responsibility, is more crucial for the groups success than anything else. Whereas it can be tolerated that average people might refuse to use the Eugenic methods I described, even if producing negative children, could be accepted as long as it is no mass phenomenon, it is a something absolutely different for the leadership which must consist on the long run only out of people with certain, very specific characteristics which make them able to be efficient, group oriented, team oriented in the leadership and at the same time incorruptible and still compassionate if its about the common, even lowest individuals of the collective and always thinking and working finally for the good of the whole collective (nation, race, culture, continent - finally whole species and ecosystem). This must be reached and enhanced step by step. Again mostly voluntary - those which want their children to be in the leadership should have the necessary basic requirements, should do the Eugenic program for that status and finally agree that their child should be mostly educated and raised in a state institute in which they will get tested and trained their whole young life until they will get a responsible position. The children again should have the freedom to go whenever they want and the institution should have the right to dismiss the aspirant at every time as well when the educators and controllers think the aspirant doesnt fit in.

As I said the state should be social and group oriented - so nobody left behind - only if its absolutely necessary for the whole group and there is no other way. That sounds abstract but means to me only those which did harm to individuals or the group = they acted in a criminal manner though they get all chances by the collective-society.

Before embarking on a plan one must be a bit more careful about the details, no matter how careful one may imagine themselves to be.

Exactly, practise would be different anyway, the result of brainstorming, intellectual work and studies done by the best heads of the state, those willing to do whats necessary to improve things.

[Agrippa]

nockwasright said:

Seems to me you both overprice intelligence at evolutionary and individual level.

No, since I know evolution can even favour the worst scum in certain situations - higher development is something which happened "by chance", there is no implicit teleology in evolution, at least no proven one - but it happened and can happen again by chance, or if humans dont fail - will be planned by ourselves in the future.

Intelligence has been an evolutionary tool for humans, but proved good only up to a point. It never got us near the level of ants, or rats.

Ants or rats wouldnt survive the end of this planet, humans might if they dont fail.

Intelligence is not and never was the first weapon of the individual to emerge within the society, let alone for having more children.

Indeed, intelligence alone is just one trait or better a bundle of traits, not everything, just a positive trait(s) which has its advantages in the combination with others. Again, evolution...

The trait that gives more chance to prevail within human society is the will to impose yourself. Being extrovert is much more important than being intelligent.

Depends on the exact society and again there might be societies which favour sociopaths, but thats obviously downgrading and there should be measures against. If a social structure favours egoistic and un-idealistic sociopaths with low analytical capabilities its time to question the social structures because the human future will be brighter with other leaders than corrupted moderators.

Political leaders of present and past, big enterpreneurs, people who rule the world, hardly ever hit the 120 IQ wall. They surround themselves with intelligent people, but such people never really get to the top.

I doubt that, though it might be true in many individual cases. Again that shows to me rather the real weakness of our system, with moderators and puppets in the front and corrupted elements in the back rather than rational and intelligent leadership working for the group. Rather a systemic fault than a proof for the "better in the less intelligent ones".

Then if the individual's aim in life is to live a decent and happy life, intelligence is non relevant at all to his aim.

Less intelligent and less self-reflexive individuals might be those which are happier, as most idiots are happier than the intelligent people - but there is a difference between the low joy of the senses and real happiness too and without long term planning and the happiness because of the great humans wouldnt even have invented the bow or wheel and would be finally as low as most animals.

Furthermore if just happiness it was counts, why not just all killing ourselves by drugs since its such a great fun?

What is real human happiness without the dark sides? Humans tend to use their limited intelligence for just satisfying their primitive instincts without using them or satisfying them with what they should be - for which they evolved in the first place: Sex without children, childless elite people, sweet food without fruits and vitamins but sugar etc...
We see all that but its a perversion of nature humans - much more than reasonable breeding of humans would be.

Furthermore in Capitalism, if manipulation would happening, it would only happen because of profits since its no Liberalcapitalistic aim to improve humans as such, they even want to keep the mass dumb, dumb producers and consumers happy with the "beneficial myth" they get presented by establishment - like Neoconservatives put it.

A happy idiot is such a great gift, much better than a highly intelligent individual which might save mankind, might find a cure for cancer, but might not be "happy all the time", like if that would be a value on its own, thats "Hollywood philosophy"...

True progress is not constant happiness but the ability of humans to value things which are of real value both on the short and long run, both for themselves as individuals and the group, both for their own group and mankind, for mankind and the species.