Why have Eugenics Studies and Policies fallen out of favor?

Discussion in 'Opinion POLLS' started by Polar Bear, Feb 27, 2012.

?

Why have Eugenics Studies and Policies Fallen out of favor?

Poll closed Feb 10, 2013.
  1. The eugenicist movements Henry Ford and Charles Lindbergh were no longer popular

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  2. Americas universities were besieged by Marxist Jews during FDRs tenure

    1 vote(s)
    8.3%
  3. German eugenicists were smeared for admitting the obvious

    3 vote(s)
    25.0%
  4. America "won" WWII, therefore academic freedom ended

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  5. Eugenics are a myth. Therefore, immigration from Somalia should be increased

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  6. Eugenics was pseudoscience, it failed to take into account Africa's gifts to modern civilization

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  7. Those who opposed eugenics were right

    5 vote(s)
    41.7%
  8. 20th century eugenicists are just pure evil

    3 vote(s)
    25.0%
  1. fiddlerdave

    fiddlerdave Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2010
    Messages:
    19,083
    Likes Received:
    2,706
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There are NO facts in your post concerning Sanger and planned Parenthood - there is nothing but the usual Life Propaganda.

    Sanger had some belief that negatively affected people like the feeble-minded should not have children, buit the idea of breeding a "superior race" woffended her.

    She did have some opinion that the lighter skinned races were superior to darker skinned, but she tolerated no discrimination in her staff, and simply wanted to allow blacks and minorities, along with whites who she worked hard with, to be able to limit their family size to avoid suffering and death in the children,

    And the current conservatives are working hard to to do the same with "defective" children NOW.

    "Defective children" need endless programs, support assistance both medical and educational and day to day care. The Right's constant refrain to end the Dept of Education, which is what supplies education for autistic, Dons syndrome and other children, along with medicaid, medicare, and all the other programs that help the helpless is simply another way to "throw defective children in the garbage", like they were 40 years ago.
     
  2. Polar Bear

    Polar Bear New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2011
    Messages:
    809
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    0


    Our schools used to look like Hitler youth camps - nothing but healthy, physically fit white children. Now our schools are dominated by overweight and obese brown people.





    .
     
  3. DeathStar

    DeathStar Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2011
    Messages:
    3,429
    Likes Received:
    43
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I don't think certain people should be allowed to reproduce, but the criteria isn't necessarily about genes as much as it's about having the ability and intent to viably raise your children.
     
  4. DeathStar

    DeathStar Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2011
    Messages:
    3,429
    Likes Received:
    43
    Trophy Points:
    0
    One reason why I support abortion is because it's people with lower-intelligence-apt genes that are relatively more likely to need abortions than those with higher-intelligence-apt genes, based on all evidence I've acquired. I fully and proudly admit that.
     
  5. Polar Bear

    Polar Bear New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2011
    Messages:
    809
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You are one of those who believe that things like "culture" and "environment" will produce intelligent, non-criminal offspring...

    :sunnysideup:
     
  6. skeptic-f

    skeptic-f New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2004
    Messages:
    7,929
    Likes Received:
    100
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If you go back a bit in time, there were plenty of white people living in slum conditions in the United States and Europe. In the U.S. those who wanted to make something of themselves could homestead or find labor but even so quite a few remained uneducated criminals (welfare bums not having been invented yet).
    In Europe large cities had large permanent under-classes (Marx called them the lumpen proletariat) who often used local slang language that had many expressions and nicknames for criminal activity (thieves cant, in London). That looks to me like culture and environment had quite an effect.
     
  7. Taxcutter

    Taxcutter New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2011
    Messages:
    20,847
    Likes Received:
    188
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Eugenics fell out of favor and got replaced by Anthropogenic global warming.
     
  8. Polar Bear

    Polar Bear New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2011
    Messages:
    809
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I will compare 18th century London, Paris or New York to 18th century Congo any day of the week!
     
  9. skeptic-f

    skeptic-f New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2004
    Messages:
    7,929
    Likes Received:
    100
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So the Congo, which was the most backward and savage part of Africa, should be compared to the most backward part of Europe as represented by London or Paris? How about making a comparison to 18th century Morocco or Ethiopia or Ghana or the Lake Tanganika area? The Congo ought to be compared to somewhere like Albania.
     
  10. Someone

    Someone New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2010
    Messages:
    7,780
    Likes Received:
    84
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Certainly. Animals have no rights, for example. They are property--people are not. Or, at least, should not be, even if slavery isn't actually abolished yet.

    There's all kinds of differences, but the basic one is that selectively bred animals exist only to serve human economic ends; whereas humans exist as an end in themselves. Applying eugenics to human beings would weaken humanity; it would destroy our diversity, our survivability, and our environmental fitness.
     
  11. Someone

    Someone New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2010
    Messages:
    7,780
    Likes Received:
    84
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The purpose of aborting people with gross genetic defects has nothing to do with "preserving the gene pool" or preventing them from having offspring. That, I suppose, is the core difference here. Eugenics has a goal towards evolution and future generations, whereas aborting children with fatal or devastating defects is done for immediate ethical reasons--to prevent the parents from having to deal with those problems, to prevent that being from dying a short, emotionally painful death, etc. Why would you want to put the parents of a child who will certainly die before they're even a year old through that emotional trauma? What would be the point? One could hardly call that an example of eugenics at work, because even if we did require the parents to bear that burden, the child in question would never contribute to the gene pool anyway.
     
  12. Someone

    Someone New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2010
    Messages:
    7,780
    Likes Received:
    84
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The US government has followed with the goals and intentions of its founders quite closely. It serves power quite effectively.
     
  13. Someone

    Someone New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2010
    Messages:
    7,780
    Likes Received:
    84
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It is almost impossible to predict what features of the human genome will be useful in the future. Certainly, it can be observed that genetic defects that are themselves inherently and invariably fatal are not adaptive... however, that cannot be said of less than fatal genetic "problems" that are maladaptive for the current environment.

    For example, eugenicists usually believe that a stronger person is more fit evolutionarily speaking... but one must remember that humans did evolve from animals that are a great deal stronger than we are. Why might that be the case? One obvious example is energy efficiency. Your body has to take in calories to power those muscles, and requires protein to grow them. In many environments, that can be severely maladaptive.

    That is merely one example of the sort of flawed short-term thinking that usually lie at the root of eugenics proposals. Diversity is invariably a good thing from an evolutionary standpoint. It essentially equates with resilience against extinction. It prepares a species for handling changes in its environment.

    There is certainly room for improving humanity--but it should be accomplished through technology that does not diminish our natural diversity. It should be done without pruning the gene pool, so to speak. Maybe you think these civilizations and our technology are permanent... but technological regression has happened before, and it's possible that it would happen again. Our genetic code is the product of millions of years of "field testing", through good times and bad times, and there is a reason why we have the genes we think we shouldn't.

    Human beings should not be a commodity, like horses or dogs.

    Irrelevant and ignorant drivel. You assume that there is some flaw in their character or knowledge that leads these societies to failure--when really it is simply the hand they are dealt by circumstance. Were fortunes different, it could have been the United States that was a postcolonial hellhole. If a few gunshots had been aimed differently, if a few secrets had not been leaked...

    As Machiavelli pointed out, one's circumstances in life are caused by the combination of both fortune and skill; you ignore fortune and assume it is entirely skill.

    We know almost nothing about most of them, so trying to predict the causes of their decline is pointless.

    Roman "multiculturalism", such as it was, served that empire well for almost a thousand years. That's a record that few "unicultural" societies have been able to match. Indeed, most of the world's great empires were multicultural societies. Their diversity lend them tremendous strength that their unicultural neighbors lacked.

    Who were themselves quite practical on the matter of multiculturalism. After all, they wanted people to populate their empire.

    Many, many waves of "foreign tribes" assimilated quite well into Roman society at the time. It's only when the Roman economy fell apart (for quite a lot of reasons, most of which had nothing to do with cultural tensions between ethnic groups) that subsequent waves of "foreign tribes" failed to be integrated. Mainly because Romans at the time basically reacted like you're reacting today, insisting that they must be held at the border, refusing to offer the most basic of economcic assistance, etc. It's that rejection of multiculturalism that precludes new groups from being integrated effectively. It's the insistence that our way is the only way, and must be adhered to completely, that creates the cultural tensions that cause problems in societies. Multicultural societies that accepted a level of individual diversity and free choice did not tend to have that problem.

    Your impressions of Marxism are false, but that is not the topic of discussion here. Marxists are many things, humanists among them. They despise racism, correctly recognizing it as a barrier to class solidarity.

    The truth may be painful, but it keeps being repeated because it is the truth.

    The Japanese were essentially selected by American planners as the executors of American economic policy in Asia after the Second World War. It's why we spent so much effort and money helping them to rebuild what we destroyed. The United States after World War Two realized that it needed partners in the world to build the postwar economic system. An industrial power with no customers, after all, is destined for economic demise.

    The South Koreans developed themselves economically mainly because they were able to distance themselves from American economic objectives, despite their reliance on American military support. Our government was committed to providing that military support for other reasons, which left them free to pursue alternative policies--like import substitution industrial development, land reforms, the criminalization of capital flight, and other essential forms of state capitalist development. These programs were ruthlessly denied to actual American client states, like those found in central and south america.

    Other states in Asia began to economically develop after the United States government realized it was progressing into a postindustrial economy--and that its private sector needed labor overseas to perform its manufacturing.

    Consider that most Asian states are still postcolonial hellholes. The exceptions are mainly states in interesting geopolitical positions, who through quirks of fortune or stubborn insistence on independence managed to pursue economic policies outside of those proscribed by American planners.
     
  14. Polar Bear

    Polar Bear New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2011
    Messages:
    809
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Even though Albania is very uncharacteristic of a European country, being 70% Muslim, Let's do it anyways!!!

    Albania

    Population - 3.1 million

    GDP - $25.04 billion

    GDP per capita 2011 - $7,780!!!!!

    HDI - 0.739-high (70th)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albania
    _______________________________


    Democratic Republic of Congo

    Population - 71,712,000

    GDP - $13 billion

    GDP per capita 2011 - $186!!!!!

    HDI - 0.286 (187th)!!!!!

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Republic_of_the_Congo




    .
     
  15. Polar Bear

    Polar Bear New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2011
    Messages:
    809
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I can just hear the *******s streaming in with the "yea, well.... Albanians were never oppressed by evil white men with the funny looking hats... :dead:

    If you knew anything about Albanian history you would know it is a blood bath filled with massacres, famines and endless wars!!! Yet even Albania, the most dysfunctional European country by far, is light years ahead of even the most advanced equatorial African country.
     
  16. rsay32

    rsay32 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2008
    Messages:
    3,723
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I think you meant to post this here: www.stormfront.org
     
  17. Cloak

    Cloak New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2010
    Messages:
    4,043
    Likes Received:
    55
    Trophy Points:
    0
    More proof: Not all conservatives are racists, but most racists are conservatives.
     
  18. montra

    montra New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2011
    Messages:
    5,953
    Likes Received:
    108
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So animals are property but people are not or should not be? Why?

    So a difference is that animals are different because they are selectively bred and exist only to serve human economic ends and humans only exist to serve themselves? Why because at various times in human history humans played the role that animals play today?

    Applying eugenics would destroy our diversity and survivability and environmental fitness? Why could it not be used to do the opposite? You seem to be almost arguing for eugenics so that such inbreeding is disallowed to occur.
     
  19. montra

    montra New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2011
    Messages:
    5,953
    Likes Received:
    108
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So evolutionarily speaking, we are creating a mass of humanity that seeks to minimize pain and suffering by killing off their offspring? What evolutionary outcome will befall us with such a trajectory I wonder? Would this not weaken our constitution are resolve?

    Also, what degree of "pain" is acceptable in order to have offspring? After all, we all experience it. What level, therefore, is unacceptable?
     
  20. montra

    montra New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2011
    Messages:
    5,953
    Likes Received:
    108
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I presume you have statistics to back your claim, unless you enjoy pulling things out of your arse that is.
     
  21. Someone

    Someone New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2010
    Messages:
    7,780
    Likes Received:
    84
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Property in general is unethical. Property itself is theft; if you own an animal, you steal it from society. If you own a person, you not only steal them from society, you steal them from themselves. In this sense, owning a person is more ethically perverse than owning an animal.

    However, I would not have a problem with abolishing the ownership of animals because I support abolishing property generally.

    It was unethical then, and it is unethical now. Property itself is unethical--ownership is immoral. Owning human beings is especially immoral because it represents a theft of a person's own self in addition to the social consequences.

    Because we artificially select for fickle strengths. We artificially select for the wrong traits; the whole practice of artificial selection assumes that a subset of traits ought to be emphasized, when in reality we need the entire set of traits to be environmentally fit. We need the weak and the strong both.

    Incorrect. I am arguing for a full scope of human diversity, regardless of notions of fitness. Nature will take care of selection quite well, it does not need human preconceptions getting in the way.
     
  22. Someone

    Someone New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2010
    Messages:
    7,780
    Likes Received:
    84
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Aborting those who will face terminal genetic failures doesn't have any impact on human evolution whatsoever, because those with such terminal genetic failures would not survive to reproduce anyway. It literally has no impact on the course of human development whatsoever. That's what differentiates it from eugenics. Eugenicists would suggest aborting reproductively viable individuals in order to direct the course of human evolution; those who think that parents who will have a terminally ill fetus ought to be allowed to abort it if they so choose are simply respecting free choice.

    Note; the choice itself is important. Mandating that fetuses with terminal genetic defects be aborted would be as wrong as requiring them to come to term, or requiring that suboptimal people be sterilized. Forcing reproductive choices on anyone is immoral.

    No. We are discussing the abortion of people who would not ever reproduce anyway, because they suffer from genetic diseases for which there is no treatment, and which will inevitably kill them before they're even old enough to have children. There are plenty of genetic diseases that cause a baby to die before it's even halfway to puberty. Some of these, like cystic fibrosis, have become somewhat treatable, but others are not. If parents of such children would rather not go through the emotional stress of watching a child die while they are helpless to do anything... I see no reason to deny them the option. In either case it has nothing to do with eugenics--because it has nothing to do with directing the course of human genetic development.

    I'm not even talking about people who suffer less than fatal genetic defects. Aborting down syndrome children, for example, is unethical; I'm talking about the truly and invariably fatal genetic disorders, like infantile Tay-Sachs and the like.
     
  23. montra

    montra New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2011
    Messages:
    5,953
    Likes Received:
    108
    Trophy Points:
    0
    What? I first asked what the difference between humans and animals were, for which the answer was that you cannot own humans nor breed them like livestock. But now you seem to be saying that this should not even be done with animals and then throw some Marxist spin on the who debate regarding property?

    So I'll try this one more time, what in your opinion is the difference between man and animal?
     
  24. montra

    montra New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2011
    Messages:
    5,953
    Likes Received:
    108
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Fickle strengths? Why can man breed animals to hunt or fight, for example, but cannot breed people to do the same? How can one be called "fickle" and the other not? To be consistent, you will need to condemn both breeding of animals and humans I would think.
     
  25. montra

    montra New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2011
    Messages:
    5,953
    Likes Received:
    108
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Planned Parenthood was created on the premise that the poor and intellectually inferior could have access to ways to curb their reproduction, thereby benefiting society as a whole. The educated and intelligent would breed with the educated and intelligent on a larger scale compared to their poor and less intellectually progressive counterparts. However, as we look at the world today, it is the affluent and educated in the Western world who are dying off due to family planning and the poor and uneducated in the third world who are breeding like rabbits. It would seem that the eugenical purpose for Planned Parenthood has achieved the opposite desired effect. In fact, the Western World as we know it is dying off. It's a little thing called birth dirth. I have often wondered if the world could possibly be headed back into the Dark Ages.
     

Share This Page