Posted on 04/05/2008 12:14:50 PM PDT by wagglebee
"When you frame an argument with something that big in the background, you lose perspective," he said.
People who are supportive of eugenics ALWAYS resent it when they are reminded how much they agree with the Nazis.
Pro-Life Ping
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
Yale Professor Explores History Of Eugenics...
eugenics should be practiced on Yale professors!!!!
The valid application of Eugenics is sterilizing those people who do not take responsibility for their children.
Keep this issue foregrounded. It is the foundation of much that goes on in the world now.
Yes it is.
eugenics - the best chance for liberal humanists to play God.
Why Politicized Science is Dangerous
(Excerpted from State of Fear)
"...Imagine that there is a new scientific theory that warns of an impending crisis, and points to a way out.
This theory quickly draws support from leading scientists, politicians and celebrities around the world. Research is funded by distinguished philanthropies, and carried out at prestigious universities. The crisis is reported frequently in the media. The science is taught in college and high school classrooms.
I don't mean global warming. I'm talking about another theory, which rose to prominence a century ago.
Its supporters included Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Winston Churchill. It was approved by Supreme Court justices Oliver Wendell Holmes and Louis Brandeis, who ruled in its favor. The famous names who supported it included Alexander Graham Bell, inventor of the telephone; activist Margaret Sanger; botanist Luther Burbank; Leland Stanford, founder of Stanford University; the novelist H. G. Wells; the playwright George Bernard Shaw; and hundreds of others. Nobel Prize winners gave support. Research was backed by the Carnegie and Rockefeller Foundations. The Cold Springs Harbor Institute was built to carry out this research, but important work was also done at Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford and Johns Hopkins. Legislation to address the crisis was passed in states from New York to California.
These efforts had the support of the National Academy of Sciences, the American Medical Association, and the National Research Council. It was said that if Jesus were alive, he would have supported this effort.
All in all, the research, legislation and molding of public opinion surrounding the theory went on for almost half a century. Those who opposed the theory were shouted down and called reactionary, blind to reality, or just plain ignorant. But in hindsight, what is surprising is that so few people objected.
Today, we know that this famous theory that gained so much support was actually pseudoscience. The crisis it claimed was nonexistent. And the actions taken in the name of theory were morally and criminally wrong. Ultimately, they led to the deaths of millions of people.
The theory was eugenics, and its history is so dreadful --- and, to those who were caught up in it, so embarrassing --- that it is now rarely discussed. But it is a story that should be well know to every citizen, so that its horrors are not repeated..."
A discussion of eugenics is not complete without bringing up its equally dangerous counterpart, dysgenics.
Yet modern society is going against natural selection. Smart kids are encouraged to put career first and discouraged from letting children get in the way. Dumb kids get low-end jobs or none at all and face little opportunity cost to start having families at a young age. So we have crack mamma with 8 kids and women with high IQs maybe having one kid — if they are lucky enough to find a guy wanting to settle down and commit to marriage.
There are only three things good in today’s society from a genetic perspective:
1) Sperm banks that have very high standards for who gets to donate (both in health and in fitness).
2) Mormons — seems the most devout and smartest have big families.
3) Orthodox Jews, see #2.
Yup, dysgenics.
Beyond even those unavoidable socioeconomic considerations, another problem is that the government directly punishes the successful (with higher taxes, for example), and directly rewards the failures (welfare, health-care, etc). If there is a significant genetic component in these outcomes, then our government policies are essentially investing in the growth of parasitic behavior, stupidity, and slothfulness.
IMO, the best policy is laissez-faires government + voluntary assistance meted out via individual judgment of merit (otherwise known as charitable activity).
I thought it was a hate crime to say "right to life" on a college campus these days.
This person was obviously the token conservative at the event.
Not really. This is part of the selection process. If having a higher average IQ (15 pts, say) does not translate directly into survivability and reproduction, IQs will fall to whatever the avg IQ of the groups who survive and breed is. We can’t go against natural selection. We ARE naturally selecting ourselves with all of the tools at our disposal, including technology and war, and hair brained social notions like “we’re all fundamentally equal.”
We do not invest in making sure we get the very most out of our smartest kids (whites/asians/ashkenazi jews) and instead invest in getting ‘underperfoming’ (for fear of using more accurate terms) minorities up to average.
If this works, we will succeed. In contract, Japan, China, and Korea do not bother with this.
My suspicion is the average IQ of th US is going to drop as the smartest people world-wide choose to stay home (rather than go to grad school here).
If we expand our visa program to keep graduate students in engineering (technology) here as long as possible, we can keep our lead with brain influx.
But currently, we’re trying to fit a square peg into a round hole by insisting that we get equal outcomes for Asians and blacks (for example) based on the premise that they’re equal fundamentally.
This fallacy is propped, I think, but delusions like religion which tout a good God would never create people with different average IQs.
Golly gee. From an evolutionary perspective, it would be expected.
Possibly as regards the left-wing faculty, but there are a good many pro-lifers among the young folk today.
The point he raises about economics is a serious one, and one neither side of the pro-life debate has taken very seriously. What happens when society simply can't afford to keep every Alzheimer's patient and ever severely retarded child alive on taxpayer dollars? What happens when the payERs revolt and say, "No more?"
“Such doctrines make eugenics sound like a socially conservative movement...” And the gal in the article majoring in Human Rights was shocked to hear about America having a eugenics history. Yet another huge leftie who has no clue about the history of the left...
Here is the ultimate hero of the left and Planned Parenthood founder, Margaret Sanger, and her eugenics NEGRO PROJECT...
http://www.blackgenocide.org/negro.html
And the Nazis were agreeing with Americans when they did it.
Our eugenics program was a model for their own.
Do you resent that?
I am well aware that the eugenics movement was founded by Charles Darwin’s cousin Francis Galton and later led by Darwin’s son Leonard. I am also aware that eugenics was encouraged in the United States by the likes of Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. and Margaret Sanger.
I’m not sure if “resent” would be the word I would use, but I deplore this part of American history just as I deplore slavery.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.