|Old_Zircon - 2013-11-13 |
California had the world's leading Eugenics program in the 1930s, so good in fact that Hitler used it as a model when he was first starting to get his own eugenics program underway.
Oh hey, Anderson covered that, I guess I should have watched the video first.
Anyway, glad to see the mainstream media has caught up with the stoner who did a term paper on this around 1999 when I was in college.
Now I want to know what ever happened with the alleged cases around the same time, in either Chicago, Detroit or Philly (I forget which) where (mostly black) women were being denied either abortions or prenatal care (I forget which) unless they elected to have tubal ligations, I knew someone who was working with a group advocating for them but I never got a clear picture of what was actually going on; she said around 300 people had come forward so far at the time.
Charles Davenport "studied" my family back in the day in yon holler.
Here, have a blast.
|Kabbage - 2013-11-13 |
|Old_Zircon - 2013-11-13 |
|theSnake - 2013-11-13 |
Except for the Nazi misuse of it, is Eugenics necessarily a bad thing though?
I can't tell if you're bullshitting or not, but I'll respond regardless.
When I was fifteen, I considered myself a proponent of eugenics. Then, I considered the whole human rights thing. Right. Nevermind.
I don't know if eugenics will be necessary in the (historically speaking) near future. Genetic modification could easily weed out most of the developmental disorders that exist today. It'll be decades, perhaps centuries, but it's better than the alternative. I don't think that one can justify a massive and insane violation of human rights by waving one's hand and saying that it's for the common good.
Also, where do you draw the line? Every time you sterilize part of the population, the average changes and suddenly a new chunk of the population finds itself as the bottom rung of genetic quality. There's always a bottom ten percent to cut. It's a slippery slope.
Five stars of me learning about something I would have dismissed as a conspiracy theory if someone had told me about it.
I was involved in a (stupid) argument one evening with a fellow who said that his sister, who has down's syndrome and, at the age of 18, still has the mental capacity of a toddler (His assessment, not my own), really wants to have a baby, and his family is very supportive of that fact. When I asked him if he thought that toddlers should be allowed to engage in sexual activity, he answered in the negative. When I asked him why he thought his sister should be exempt from that general rule-of-thumb, he was outraged. Do I think she ought to be sterilized to keep from spreading her genetic disorder? Hell no; I think that basic morality covers it quite nicely.
Eugenics is a bad idea for the reasons that Comeuppance pointed out; there's no clear delineation between 'disorder' and 'normality', and we still lack the scientific knowledge to determine where it would be safe or useful to start pruning branches of our genetic tree; genes that are fatally detrimental to specific species members may have a beneficial effect to the populations from which they are issued. (See sickle cell anaemia genes helping malaria resistance in affected populations.) Oh yeah, and the whole human rights thing. That's pretty damned important, as well.
I have strong inductive evidence that eugenics, as was popularized at that time, would have failed...
The UK Kennel Club. They remain an interrupted line of old school eugenic experimentation. Those dogs are wrecked.
Now, genetic engineering is fucking exciting!
And I mean those dogs are transporter accident wrecked.
|Rodents of Unusual Size - 2013-11-14 |
Oh god no.
| Register or login To Post a Comment|