

...................................................knowmad wrote:Public anouncement flyers from 1934
theCryptofishist wrote:Ah, American Eugenicists. We might still think it was okay, if there hadn't been that glaring correction in the 40s...
MyDearFriend wrote:I can't believe I'm taking shit from a meat-cake-with-teeth. :lol:
BBadger wrote:theCryptofishist wrote:Ah, American Eugenicists. We might still think it was okay, if there hadn't been that glaring correction in the 40s...
Nah, most of us still do believe in the "good" of eugenics, but of course we don't want to admit it, or label it as such. At the social level, while we're not about to authorize sterilization or gassing people, we still laugh with and celebrate sites like the Darwin Awards and talk about ridding the gene pool of stupid people ("well, hopefully he didn't manage to have any kids!"). At the procreation level, soon we'll have genetic analysis of fetuses in the womb to determine if certain inheritable traits can be... avoided. Maybe we'll even have selective genes selection and pruning at conception, a step up from surrogate mother and sperm donor choice.
Sure it's not early 20th century eugenics, and who can really blame those 20th-century eugenicists? They only had sterilization and executions at their disposal. These days but now we're more enlightened right? We know what is really inheritable, now that we have the science of genetics, and we'll achieve those aims without messy issues such as human rights getting in the way.
WTF!?
theCryptofishist wrote:Not quite sure how seriously to take this post...
Whatever the tools we have at our disposal, we don't know what actually has the survival value. It's quite likely that the selection pressures over the past millennium in Europe has been more about surviving communicable diseases than intelligence, for instance. Once I let that sink it, eugenics became somewhat moot for me. Or very moot. Or from a different viewpoint, I could think of multiple reasons to sterilize myself, and others to continue my family's presence in the gene pool. I'm just as glad that I was never given the power, because it seems like a sure-fire way of committing a horrible sin without any actual possibility of getting what it is what I want.
But yes, I hate stupid people all the time. I just try not to take myself seriously when I do that.
MyDearFriend wrote:I can't believe I'm taking shit from a meat-cake-with-teeth. :lol:
BBadger wrote:theCryptofishist wrote:Ah, American Eugenicists. We might still think it was okay, if there hadn't been that glaring correction in the 40s...
Nah, most of us still do believe in the "good" of eugenics, but of course we don't want to admit it, or label it as such. At the social level, while we're not about to authorize sterilization or gassing people, we still laugh with and celebrate sites like the Darwin Awards and talk about ridding the gene pool of stupid people ("well, hopefully he didn't manage to have any kids!"). At the procreation level, soon we'll have genetic analysis of fetuses in the womb to determine if certain inheritable traits can be... avoided. Maybe we'll even have selective genes selection and pruning at conception, a step up from surrogate mother and sperm donor choice.
Sure it's not early 20th century eugenics, and who can really blame those 20th-century eugenicists? They only had sterilization and executions at their disposal. These days but now we're more enlightened right? We know what is really inheritable, now that we have the science of genetics, and we'll achieve those aims without messy issues such as human rights getting in the way.
WTF!?

jkisha wrote:BBadger wrote:theCryptofishist wrote:Ah, American Eugenicists. We might still think it was okay, if there hadn't been that glaring correction in the 40s...
Nah, most of us still do believe in the "good" of eugenics, but of course we don't want to admit it, or label it as such. At the social level, while we're not about to authorize sterilization or gassing people, we still laugh with and celebrate sites like the Darwin Awards and talk about ridding the gene pool of stupid people ("well, hopefully he didn't manage to have any kids!"). At the procreation level, soon we'll have genetic analysis of fetuses in the womb to determine if certain inheritable traits can be... avoided. Maybe we'll even have selective genes selection and pruning at conception, a step up from surrogate mother and sperm donor choice.
Sure it's not early 20th century eugenics, and who can really blame those 20th-century eugenicists? They only had sterilization and executions at their disposal. These days but now we're more enlightened right? We know what is really inheritable, now that we have the science of genetics, and we'll achieve those aims without messy issues such as human rights getting in the way.
WTF!?
My biggest problem with this are the unanticipated consequences.
MyDearFriend wrote:Bwahahahahahaha, yeah, but fortunately from an evolutionary perspective all these things are pretty meaningless. The invisible hand of Darwin will not be influenced by human efforts, and as individuals the best we can do is roll our dice with care and attention.
theCryptofishist wrote:I think we have a triple winner here: Most embarrassed horses; worst lip-syncing; and largest group of women wearing underwear that looks like merkins.
Courtesy of pizzamancer.
Users browsing this forum: Winkanmocker and 0 guests