5 ms·
Judge de current situation by ethical standards of the present and judge historic ones with the eyes of those days. Eugenics was, once upon a time, seen like "g
by rvr_ 6y ago
Judge de current situation by ethical standards of the present and judge historic ones with the eyes of those days. Eugenics was, once upon a time, seen like "good stuff" all around the globo, not anymore.
- lmz 6y agoIt sounds unfair. It's OK for these other countries to keep enjoying the benefits of eugenics they did in the past, but China can't join in? (same argument can be used for pollution)
- pseudalopex 6y agoWhat benefits?
- lmz 6y agoIncreased unity, no need to consider minority demands. e.g. consider the Keystone XL pipeline. Would it be easier and quicker to build without the Native population being there to protest? Or consider the recent race riots in the USA, would such a thing even be possible in places without such diversity?
- pseudalopex 6y agoSounds like they aren't enjoying benefits from past eugenics after all.
- jjgreen 6y agoIndeed it was. I once had occasion to study a 1930s paper on the mathematics of population growth by R.A. Fisher, it gave me no pleasure to leaf through the "Annals of Eugenics" to find it. But we have an essential difference I think between the genocide that China stands accused of, which you yourself see as a "temporally relative evil" (yes the US did it, but it was a while ago), and the genocide of the German attempt to destroy European Jewry (which was also a while ago) that I think we would all agree is an "absolute evil". So perhaps the Economist have a point here.