I was surfing the internet for more information about the eugenicist William Hamilton. After all, Hamilton is the source for Richard Dawkins' "selfish gene" perspective, yet eugenics is another topic Dawkins steers clear of. I stumbled across this article by Steve Sailer. Sailer is another fan of Hamilton and scolds Dawkins for not being willing to follow his Darwinian logic all the way to the end. You'll have to read the article for yourself.
Sailer is also a eugenicist. You can familiarize yourself with his perspective from a speech he gave to Lady Thatcher at the Hudson Institute conference.
Sailer also heads up something called The Human Biodiversity Institute. Their mission is clearly eugenic in essence:
The constant innovation in genetics and reproductive technologies is a sign that the evolution of the human race is about to accelerate almost unimaginably. Thus, we can no longer afford the comforting illusion that evolution doesn't really apply to humanity. We desperately need to understand the social impact of the various possible changes in our gene frequencies. Fortunately, we have a huge storehouse of data available to base predictions upon: the vast amounts of existing biological diversity. Unfortunately, we now discourage serious thinkers from examining it. Our only chance of foreseeing the potential world-shaking impact of Galtonian artificial selection rests in the honest, unstifled study of Darwinian natural selection. God help us if we don't start helping ourselves.
Okay, but then things get interesting.
Michael Bailey is a psychologist from Northwestern University. He wrote a book – The Man Who Would Be Queen. The book outraged many transsexuals, including Lynn Conway . What is most interesting from their arguments is that Conway was somehow able to get a list of members for the Human Biodiversity Discussion Group. Sailer describes this e-mail list as consisting "of a small (limited to 100 members), elite, and eclectic mix of experts from across the scientific, intellectual, and political spectrums who civilly discuss the implications of human biodiversity (i.e., differences in race, sex, sexual orientation, etc.)."
If you read through the eugenicist list, you'll find a few names familiar to the ID debate "“ Daniel Dennett, John Derbyshire, and Steven Pinker.
My, it's a small world.