Eugenics

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

As it should be!

The Telcontorian, I do appreciate the effort you obviously put in to finding those links, but I don't want my head to explode from all the stupid, racist, hateful bull feces that is likely to spew forth. At least, not before I'm done all my errands today.

(Not that I already think Eugenics is total rubbish or anything. )

Hey.

Also, socialism is evil because of Communism? Communism is the extreme of all socialist ideas. That's like saying food is evil because overeating can lead to obesity, sheesh man!

Socialism leads to communism, communism leads to hate, hate leads to suffering, Nurv, it's that simple. Really it's just a people-controlling system. And I don't just mean your right to pee on the sidewalk, but your ability to think about it in the first place. It's a mind-smoothy making blender.

BTW, everyone: as I have been saying already to a few; I am right now inside of the actual Al Gore University Library. (aka Middle Tenn State Univ).

[Huorn]

Where did the idea of Eugenics come from? What ideas contributed to it? What is it really?

The term eugenics is derived from the Greek eugenes, meaning 'well born'. It is also where we get the name Eugene and the words gene and genetics.

The idea of eugenics was introduced in 1883 by Sir Francis Galton. Galton may have intended for eugenics to have a broader scope but it has come to concern primarly the research and programs intended to improve man's genetic constitution.

Many eugenics theories are the same kind of theories used in the breeding of plants and animals. Shaky ground is broached when societal control is attempted over human reproduction.

Modern Eugenics has two major areas of interest. The first area is the extension of the present knowledge of the modes of inheritance and the desirability of human characteristics. The second is the generation of schema intended to improve genetic qualities through what Galton termed "agencies under social control."

No doubt eugenics was practiced long before Galton. In primitive cultures, infants with deformities or peculiarities were either killed or neglected and allowed to die.

Eugenics ideas are found in the writings of Plato who advocated death for the feeble, the diseased and those who were otherwise considered inferior. Plato advocated temporary laisons with men and women who were considered superior breeding stock to produce superior children.

Galton was an English scientist whos main concern was the increasing of human intelligence. To him eugenics was a means to that end. He formed the Eugenics Society in Great Britain in 1908 and in 1926 a sister organization the American Eugenics Society was founded.

In its early history the ideas of the Eugenics was at odds with Social Darwinists. At first the Social Darwinists believed that natual selection was the only way that human populations could improve. But slowly, people with Social Darwinist ideas began to crop up in the Eugenics movement.

The movement was also plagued by racist tendencies in the early 20th century. Some races were thought superior to others. They believed 'pure racial stocks' needed to be maintained. Modern eugenicists have now discarded these ideas.

In practice eugenic goals are reached by not allowing certain persons to have children. In some countries this entailes sterilization or forced abortion.

In a nutshell Eugenics is man trying to control the genetic makeup of the human population. It is fraught with pitfalls. To make the system work, sombody's human rights gets trodden under foot.

[hectorberlioz]

Sir Galton ain't going on my list of 1001 knights, thats for sure... (at least, I won't suggest him...somebody else can).

[Nurvingiel]

<OT>

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Socialism leads to communism, communism leads to hate, hate leads to suffering, Nurv, it's that simple. Really it's just a people-controlling system. And I don't just mean your right to pee on the sidewalk, but your ability to think about it in the first place. It's a mind-smoothy making blender.

What the hell!? No it doesn't! You're reeeeeeally reaching there Hector. I am very Socialist, but If I ever met Joseph Stalin (a Communist, and I do know he's dead) I'd kick him right in the nuts.

Rember, Communism is extreme socialism, but Socialism is not Communism. Subscribing to a broad political view does not mean you agree with all subcategories that fall under the definition.

Equating your average Joe Liberal Socialist with Communism (very not Liberal, incidentally) is the same as equating Jamie Republican with a fascist dictator.

What do you say we smooth out our political differences over a pint or two in the Teacup?

</OT>

Sorry about the OTness, we'll stop now.

(We can carry on the discussion in the Teacup or some similarly appropriate thread Hector. )

[Bombadillo]

Haha. I liked the Yoda impression there.

I'm intrigued by Eugenics. I think the motivation behind it is good, productive, and noble. I'm all for evolution, and if there's a way we can accelerate it, I'm all for it, as long as it's ethical. Obviously nothing can justify the killing of disabled or ugly people or denying them the right to reproduce. That's just dumb.

[The Telcontarion]

Rember, Communism is extreme socialism

I agree, socilalism is not communism - I am socialist myself, however...

The problem is that all governing systems tend to be able to be corrupted, eventually...

So for me, I say go back to the old barter system, where we trade our skills, goods and services. Then like Bob Marley said, "No more war."

The yoda impression was lovely.

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I am very Socialist, but If I ever met Joseph Stalin (a Communist, and I do know he's dead) I'd kick him right in the nuts.

heheheh!

Well I'm a socialist and I too would give his cobblers a dusting with my Doc Marten-clad size 9s given half a chance.

As well as left-right you also have to think about the liberal-authoritarian axis. Oh, plus how there has never been a truly socialist state at any point in human history (yet).

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Bombadillo

Haha. I liked the Yoda impression there.

I'm intrigued by Eugenics. I think the motivation behind it is good, productive, and noble. I'm all for evolution, and if there's a way we can accelerate it, I'm all for it, as long as it's ethical. Obviously nothing can justify the killing of disabled or ugly people or denying them the right to reproduce. That's just dumb.

The problem is that it can never be eithical. I imagine that Eugenicists are thinking "Well, let's not do it like Hitler, let's wait until nobody is looking."
That's impossible.

As one writer puts it (and the article link can be found in the abortion thread):

"Things were going nicely for the eugenicists until Hitler gave eugenics a bad name by being so good at it."

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

<OT>What the hell!? No it doesn't! You're reeeeeeally reaching there Hector. I am very Socialist, but If I ever met Joseph Stalin (a Communist, and I do know he's dead) I'd kick him right in the nuts.

Maybe you couldn't, actually. If you sat down with Stalin and let him tell his tale, you'd probably think he was a nice guy...he liked Mozart, he had a family and he was thought to be a good father, he was concious of his shortness (even beside Truman). Saddam Hussein is already halfway there convincing a lot of liberals that he's human too. Lets sit down and have a cup of tea with Bin Laden ...maybe he ate something bad that made him a little nuts before 9/11...maybe he thought the Twin Towers were The Two Towers; "Oh, I killed innocents? Oh! I thought I was in Middle Earth destroying Sauron and Saruman. Oops. Can you ever forgive me?"

Rember, Communism is extreme socialism, but Socialism is not Communism. Subscribing to a broad political view does not mean you agree with all subcategories that fall under the definition.

Yes, you're right. But Socialism DOES, and HAS led countries to mere dictatorship. Hugo Chavez in Venezuela: those Venezuelans will never have another free election in their lifetime. He is now the undisputed ruler. I'm not against good rulers if there are any, but from a gov-electing country to a dictated country?

Even though democracy is loud and crazy and often corrupt, no politician can break the system all the way. There are too many people after eachother...

Equating your average Joe Liberal Socialist with Communism (very not Liberal, incidentally) is the same as equating Jamie Republican with a fascist dictator.

Fine and well, but it doesn't change what I said above.

What do you say we smooth out our political differences over a pint or two in the Teacup?

</OT>

Sorry about the OTness, we'll stop now.

(We can carry on the discussion in the Teacup or some similarly appropriate thread Hector. )

Nurv, you and I will always be friends * Disney's Fox & Hound music*


Ok, Nurv, give me your absolute best definition of Socialism...

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Bombadillo

I'm intrigued by Eugenics. I think the motivation behind it is good, productive, and noble. I'm all for evolution, and if there's a way we can accelerate it, I'm all for it, as long as it's ethical. Obviously nothing can justify the killing of disabled or ugly people or denying them the right to reproduce. That's just dumb.

Well see but thats the problem. evolution is a process that by definition IS cruel and painful and horrific and violent and sad. Hard to get around that part. Thats why its probably best to leave this to nature. After all we are already doing our level best to fight against natural evolution by use of pharmaceuticals and various technologies. Thats why we will all evolve into fat pale puddles of dna eventually.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Its interesting to note that luminaries like Alexander Graham Bell, George Bernard Shaw, and Winston Churchill all openly touted the idea of eugenics and how it could be a positive thing for society as a whole. It was even taught in universities and no one really blinked until the Nazis started using it for their own perverted purposed in the 1930's. Ever since then its been synonymous with pseudoscience and virulent racial discrimination justification.

Chesterton decried the evils of eugenics long before the Nazis came around.

[hectorberlioz]

And according to a Touchstone article I just read, 1925 schools taught eugenics.*

(*If you wonder about the date 1925, it's because the article was about the Scopes Trial)

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Falagar

You're aware of, I suppose, that most of northern Europe (some of the most successful countries in the world) all are socialistic? Even the US isn't entirely engulfed in capitalism. It's also important to note that "society" (in the meaning deployed here, at any rate) is made up of individuals. I have lots of names for our government, but "pure evil" isn't the first thing that comes to mind.

On eugenics: though of course the concept is pretty scary it isn't really new; read "The Republic" by Platon.

Thanks be to God, that the US is not entirely capitalistic. But it needs to be a hell of a lot less so...

You are right, Plato did advocate a sort of eugenics in the Republic. I have the feeling he wasn't sure it would work, though, as he made provisions for switching around gold, silver, etc. children, if a bronze turned out to be gold material, or a gold unworthy.

But yeah, the Republic is where you really see some of the flaws in his philosophy.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Even though democracy is loud and crazy and often corrupt, no politician can break the system all the way. There are too many people after eachother...

Oh, no? Read up on Alcibiades. He had the whole of Athens hating him one minute, and eating out of his hand the next.

All it takes is a superb orator.

And how about Hitler?

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Oh, no? Read up on Alcibiades. He had the whole of Athens hating him one minute, and eating out of his hand the next.

All it takes is a superb orator.

And how about Hitler?

I agree: easy to manipulate.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

You do realise you were the one who said "no politician can break the system", don't you?

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

You do realise you were the one who said "no politician can break the system", don't you?

Is manipulating the same as breaking? ...Bill Clinton, for instance, manipulated people to lie for him, but he was exposed in the end (thankfully, not indecently...)


BTW, I just checked, and what I said was No pol can break the system, ALL THE WAY. You see, there is a difference.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Alcibiades and Hitler pretty well broke the system. There was another Athenian statesman who ended up as essentially the master of Athens, though I don't remember his name...he was more benevolent, though.

Pericles, maybe? I think so.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Alcibiades and Hitler pretty well broke the system. There was another Athenian statesman who ended up as essentially the master of Athens, though I don't remember his name...he was more benevolent, though.

Pericles, maybe? I think so.

Ah yes, old Particle ...he was a pretty nice guy, according to the account I read...

[Gwaimir Windgem]

He was, but he may have been a bit misguided. Also, he basically ran Athens as a monarch, despite the fact that it was ostensibly a democracy.