6 ms·

One of the things we’ve learned about eugenics is that even if you agree with it in principle (and to be clear, I do not), it’s painfully clear that in practice

One of the things we’ve learned about eugenics is that even if you agree with it in principle (and to be clear, I do not), it’s painfully clear that in practice it slides down to Nazism and genocide very rapidly. This is why these ideas have been purged from polite society, and people who openly espouse them are shunned and shamed. We’ve seen where these things lead, and most people are rightly horrified by it. The road between “these people are ‘feeble minded’ and we should sterilize them for the good of the species” and “these aren’t even people we should kill them” is very short and paved in literal millions of dead bodies. The processes that allow one to forcibly sterilize a fellow human being against their will requires some degree of dehumanization, which is why it goes to even worse places than where it started.

mc32 6y ago
I agree that eugenics is problematic for many reasons. However, when people were thinking these things out, many or most thought they were doing it to improve humanity (I guess we’d breed out the undesirable traits). From that PoV I would not try to erase their memories. This reminds me of the cultural revolution and the four olds (sì jiù). There are other important things to attend to. Learn to live with your warts. You don’t have to look like a pristine model. Nor does society.
- mhh__ 6y ago
  > From that PoV I would not try to erase their memories. How is choosing to no longer use their name for a building or award erasing their memories?
  - mc32 6y ago
    One day you find out your parents were cheats. Or they stole Amazon packages, whatever. Do you think those people should go ahead and change their surnames? A bunch of goodie-two-shoes.
    - mhh__ 6y ago
      If I found out my parents believed in Eugenics I wouldn't talk to them
      - mc32 6y ago
        But you don’t pretend you don’t know them or that they are not your parents. The great majority thought they were doing good. We know different today. We know now the new Soviet man is bullshit. Back then they believed in this.
        mhh__ 6y ago
        So what? The point is that we don't name awards after them. They aren't erasing Millikan from the history books but rather choosing not to blindly use his name as a honour. My secondary school house was named after a slave trader, they recently changed it - good riddance. Of all the bad things modern reappraisal culture is leading to, this isn't one of them.
        mc32 6y ago
        Buying and selling people is not the same. There is no science. It’s just brutality. Eugenicists were looking to better society, albeit absurdly. It was bullshit but back then it wasn’t. It’s like condemning shamen and medicine men and women. Sure it was bullshit, but they thought it was real and effective. We’re going to Mars. Maybe Elon will be first. Most everyone would be excited. Maybe some day in the future it’ll be the worst thing we ever did as a species. Do we vomit on them because now we know better?
        pseudalopex 6y ago
        Caltech's president said Millikan lent his name to views discredited even at the time. Not honoring someone isn't vomiting on them.
        pseudalopex 6y ago
  - throwawayboise 6y ago
    Well maybe, having the name "in the public" like that will make it more likely that people will stay aware of the history. If the name is removed from the public and found only in books that are dusty on the shelves of an archive, that's less likely. Maybe the answer is a somber monument, "Horrible People in Our History" somewhere on campus.
    - mhh__ 6y ago
      > Maybe the answer is a somber monument, "Horrible People in Our History" somewhere on campus. I don't mind that. And Millikan's name will probably last for a millennia because of his work in physics.
    - ashtonkem 6y ago
      > Well maybe, having the name "in the public" like that will make it more likely that people will stay aware of the history. If the name is removed from the public and found only in books that are dusty on the shelves of an archive, that's less likely. In my experience, organizations tend to downplay the misdeeds of those whose name and likeness are prominently displayed in or around their buildings. It's just not terribly easy for an organization to talk frankly about such things without it getting really awkward, so they tend to just ... not talk about it. I also supremely doubt that many people learned about Millikan's life from the building, ditto for his more troubled aspects. I also doubt that many people here have, or ever will, visit that building. The move to rename this building probably taught more people about his troubled aspects than the building itself ever did. Instead I think it's more fair to say that naming a building after anyone is a tribute and an attempt to hold someone up as a model to be followed by those who go there. I think there's an interesting and nuanced discussion to be had about whether Millikan's negative aspects justify his removal, but I think arguing that we need his name on a building in order to remember him and his eugenicist past are a bit silly, frankly.
- ashtonkem 6y ago
  > I agree that eugenics is problematic for many reasons. However, when people were thinking these things out, many or most thought they were doing it to improve humanity (I guess we’d breed out the undesirable traits). Agreed. The idea that someone might have done horrible things while having good intentions is an apt lesson for us all. Caltech should absolutely keep him up on their website and official history, and discuss both his contributions and his shortcomings. > From that PoV I would not try to erase their memories. That's where we diverge. In no way are they actually erasing his memory. Naming buildings after people and building statues of people isn't just history, it's an endorsement. It is a group of people coming together saying "this person should be celebrated and held up as someone to be emulated". There is no obligation for Caltech to continue to hold up Millikan as someone to be proud of, or as a name that deserves honor and emulation going forward. Nor does renaming a building mean that we're magically going to forget him. Keep him in the history books, but name the building after someone that students should look to emulate. Ironically, renaming this building probably taught more people about Millikan than the building itself ever did. I think the number of people who actually learned about Millikan because of that building is approximately 0. Most either have no clue who he was (I'm in this category), or knew about him beforehand from his work in physics. > This reminds me of the cultural revolution and the four olds (sì jiù). Flip side of this; if China eventually became a democracy, would you demand that the worst perpetrators the cultural revolution get to keep their places of honor in schools and statues? Or would you understand why these hypothetical future citizens of this democracy might not be super happy about having their kids attend a school named after someone they consider to be an awful person? I think fundamentally, everyone has a line where they say "that person is too awful to name a school building after", and I think it's a bit silly to pretend that saying that is to erase history or start a cultural revolution. You would probably be rightfully shocked and appalled if someone tried to make an Adolf Hitler memorial art school, and I doubt you would argue that renaming such a school back to something reasonable would be to "erase" Hitler's memory. The difference is that you don't seem to think that Millikan's behavior is bad enough to warrant renaming over, while I disagree. I think that's a perfectly reasonable disagreement to have too! Unlike Hitler, Millikan made great contributions to science, and doesn't have a directly attributed body count. But let's actually have that conversation rather than pretending that we'd forget about him if it weren't for that single building in Caltech that neither of us have probably been to or even heard of before this. > There are other important things to attend to. In times and places, I think that this can be an issue. But if Caltech has a single committee over the summer and decides to rename a building, are they really wasting any resources that could've been spent elsewhere? A few hours to discuss and create a single press release doesn't really seem like it's distracting too much from anything important, and is probably pretty minor in the grand scheme of low value university meetings. The cynical part of my soul wonders if the committee members ever do anything useful, and if having them off renaming buildings and similar instead kept them off the backs of the people who actually do real work around there. I also think universities do all kinds of things that waste administrator's time, or cause them to have too many administrators in general, distract students from education, or otherwise waste resources. But of course concern over such things only get brought out in extremely selective cases, which makes me think that there's little appetite in general for making universities focus more on education, and more interest in using that as a post-hoc argument against something they already dislike for other reasons. I've certainly never seen anyone go at college sports with anywhere near the intensity as we see in these cases, and in terms of distracting colleges from important things to attend to, that should be your top priority. And for the record, I would cancel college sports or at least strip them of all their money, they're a massive waste of university time, attention, and resources, and a blisteringly stupid way to hand out scholarship money. No, I'm not from the south; I'd probably be run out of town on a rail if I said that there. That change alone could fund thousands of silly committees and still shifted more resources to education and scholarship. > Learn to live with your warts. You don’t have to look like a pristine model. Nor does society. Again, living with warts and having buildings named after said warts are different things. "Living with your warts" and honoring someone with a building are completely orthogonal things; one can do the former without doing the latter. And one can also do the latter and not the former, as Caltech has probably been doing until now. One typically finds that organizations tend to downplay the warts of people whose name and likeness are plastered in prominent locations. Perhaps taking his name off a building is the first step in an honest and balanced discussion of both his contributions and his shortcomings.
mortdeus 6y ago
there is a whole section of mathematical economics that is devoted to conducting effective warfare, should we claim that entire branch of science is fake just because it's resulted in millions of people's death who typically belong to a specific non-white race? What I believe is that a person can be shitty, but also be a really great scientist to the point that we should overlook the personality and honor them for the contribution. I mean, hell are we going to start scrubbing Edison's name off of everything just because all the PETA people are offended that he used to electrocute dogs, cats, horses (and even an elephant i believe) just to prove that inefficient DC is safer than Tesla's magical, "can transmit through the air and electrocute you to death while walking down the street" AC? No we shouldn't just because we hate their personal beliefs and actions. First of all we shouldn't scrub them from the history books so we don't forget their atrocities and failings, but secondly we shouldn't scrub them out because the contribution has had a far more valuable and beneficial contribution to society. Like I pointed out in another comment you say it's bad because the idea led to a horrifying geopolitical conclusion. But what about all of the medical miracles that eugenics led to like establishments of bioengineering in both crops and microbiology? You could literally say that people like Robert A Milikan are indirectly responsible for all the lives saved with this COVID vaccine just as much as he is indirectly responsible for all the lives lost in the holocaust. Idk, was he probably a shitty human being? Sure but so were most of our grandparents. Are we going to start chiseling out the names on tombstones so society doesn't have to suffer the eyesores of their cultural blights?
- AlotOfReading 6y ago
  Despite your arguments in an earlier (deleted) comment, eugenics is not good science. Furthermore, this isn't "scrubbing them from the history books". It's removing their names from some awards and buildings. You'll still be able to find their papers in the library and read about them on Wikipedia.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

mc32 6y ago

I agree that eugenics is problematic for many reasons. However, when people were thinking these things out, many or most thought they were doing it to improve humanity (I guess we’d breed out the undesirable traits). From that PoV I would not try to erase their memories. This reminds me of the cultural revolution and the four olds (sì jiù). There are other important things to attend to. Learn to live with your warts. You don’t have to look like a pristine model. Nor does society.

mhh__ 6y ago
> From that PoV I would not try to erase their memories. How is choosing to no longer use their name for a building or award erasing their memories?
- mc32 6y ago
  One day you find out your parents were cheats. Or they stole Amazon packages, whatever. Do you think those people should go ahead and change their surnames? A bunch of goodie-two-shoes.
  - mhh__ 6y ago
    If I found out my parents believed in Eugenics I wouldn't talk to them
    - mc32 6y ago
      But you don’t pretend you don’t know them or that they are not your parents. The great majority thought they were doing good. We know different today. We know now the new Soviet man is bullshit. Back then they believed in this.
      - mhh__ 6y ago
        So what? The point is that we don't name awards after them. They aren't erasing Millikan from the history books but rather choosing not to blindly use his name as a honour. My secondary school house was named after a slave trader, they recently changed it - good riddance. Of all the bad things modern reappraisal culture is leading to, this isn't one of them.
        mc32 6y ago
        Buying and selling people is not the same. There is no science. It’s just brutality. Eugenicists were looking to better society, albeit absurdly. It was bullshit but back then it wasn’t. It’s like condemning shamen and medicine men and women. Sure it was bullshit, but they thought it was real and effective. We’re going to Mars. Maybe Elon will be first. Most everyone would be excited. Maybe some day in the future it’ll be the worst thing we ever did as a species. Do we vomit on them because now we know better?
        pseudalopex 6y ago
        Caltech's president said Millikan lent his name to views discredited even at the time. Not honoring someone isn't vomiting on them.
      - pseudalopex 6y ago
- throwawayboise 6y ago
  Well maybe, having the name "in the public" like that will make it more likely that people will stay aware of the history. If the name is removed from the public and found only in books that are dusty on the shelves of an archive, that's less likely. Maybe the answer is a somber monument, "Horrible People in Our History" somewhere on campus.
  - mhh__ 6y ago
    > Maybe the answer is a somber monument, "Horrible People in Our History" somewhere on campus. I don't mind that. And Millikan's name will probably last for a millennia because of his work in physics.
  - ashtonkem 6y ago
    > Well maybe, having the name "in the public" like that will make it more likely that people will stay aware of the history. If the name is removed from the public and found only in books that are dusty on the shelves of an archive, that's less likely. In my experience, organizations tend to downplay the misdeeds of those whose name and likeness are prominently displayed in or around their buildings. It's just not terribly easy for an organization to talk frankly about such things without it getting really awkward, so they tend to just ... not talk about it. I also supremely doubt that many people learned about Millikan's life from the building, ditto for his more troubled aspects. I also doubt that many people here have, or ever will, visit that building. The move to rename this building probably taught more people about his troubled aspects than the building itself ever did. Instead I think it's more fair to say that naming a building after anyone is a tribute and an attempt to hold someone up as a model to be followed by those who go there. I think there's an interesting and nuanced discussion to be had about whether Millikan's negative aspects justify his removal, but I think arguing that we need his name on a building in order to remember him and his eugenicist past are a bit silly, frankly.
ashtonkem 6y ago
> I agree that eugenics is problematic for many reasons. However, when people were thinking these things out, many or most thought they were doing it to improve humanity (I guess we’d breed out the undesirable traits). Agreed. The idea that someone might have done horrible things while having good intentions is an apt lesson for us all. Caltech should absolutely keep him up on their website and official history, and discuss both his contributions and his shortcomings. > From that PoV I would not try to erase their memories. That's where we diverge. In no way are they actually erasing his memory. Naming buildings after people and building statues of people isn't just history, it's an endorsement. It is a group of people coming together saying "this person should be celebrated and held up as someone to be emulated". There is no obligation for Caltech to continue to hold up Millikan as someone to be proud of, or as a name that deserves honor and emulation going forward. Nor does renaming a building mean that we're magically going to forget him. Keep him in the history books, but name the building after someone that students should look to emulate. Ironically, renaming this building probably taught more people about Millikan than the building itself ever did. I think the number of people who actually learned about Millikan because of that building is approximately 0. Most either have no clue who he was (I'm in this category), or knew about him beforehand from his work in physics. > This reminds me of the cultural revolution and the four olds (sì jiù). Flip side of this; if China eventually became a democracy, would you demand that the worst perpetrators the cultural revolution get to keep their places of honor in schools and statues? Or would you understand why these hypothetical future citizens of this democracy might not be super happy about having their kids attend a school named after someone they consider to be an awful person? I think fundamentally, everyone has a line where they say "that person is too awful to name a school building after", and I think it's a bit silly to pretend that saying that is to erase history or start a cultural revolution. You would probably be rightfully shocked and appalled if someone tried to make an Adolf Hitler memorial art school, and I doubt you would argue that renaming such a school back to something reasonable would be to "erase" Hitler's memory. The difference is that you don't seem to think that Millikan's behavior is bad enough to warrant renaming over, while I disagree. I think that's a perfectly reasonable disagreement to have too! Unlike Hitler, Millikan made great contributions to science, and doesn't have a directly attributed body count. But let's actually have that conversation rather than pretending that we'd forget about him if it weren't for that single building in Caltech that neither of us have probably been to or even heard of before this. > There are other important things to attend to. In times and places, I think that this can be an issue. But if Caltech has a single committee over the summer and decides to rename a building, are they really wasting any resources that could've been spent elsewhere? A few hours to discuss and create a single press release doesn't really seem like it's distracting too much from anything important, and is probably pretty minor in the grand scheme of low value university meetings. The cynical part of my soul wonders if the committee members ever do anything useful, and if having them off renaming buildings and similar instead kept them off the backs of the people who actually do real work around there. I also think universities do all kinds of things that waste administrator's time, or cause them to have too many administrators in general, distract students from education, or otherwise waste resources. But of course concern over such things only get brought out in extremely selective cases, which makes me think that there's little appetite in general for making universities focus more on education, and more interest in using that as a post-hoc argument against something they already dislike for other reasons. I've certainly never seen anyone go at college sports with anywhere near the intensity as we see in these cases, and in terms of distracting colleges from important things to attend to, that should be your top priority. And for the record, I would cancel college sports or at least strip them of all their money, they're a massive waste of university time, attention, and resources, and a blisteringly stupid way to hand out scholarship money. No, I'm not from the south; I'd probably be run out of town on a rail if I said that there. That change alone could fund thousands of silly committees and still shifted more resources to education and scholarship. > Learn to live with your warts. You don’t have to look like a pristine model. Nor does society. Again, living with warts and having buildings named after said warts are different things. "Living with your warts" and honoring someone with a building are completely orthogonal things; one can do the former without doing the latter. And one can also do the latter and not the former, as Caltech has probably been doing until now. One typically finds that organizations tend to downplay the warts of people whose name and likeness are plastered in prominent locations. Perhaps taking his name off a building is the first step in an honest and balanced discussion of both his contributions and his shortcomings.

mortdeus 6y ago

there is a whole section of mathematical economics that is devoted to conducting effective warfare, should we claim that entire branch of science is fake just because it's resulted in millions of people's death who typically belong to a specific non-white race? What I believe is that a person can be shitty, but also be a really great scientist to the point that we should overlook the personality and honor them for the contribution. I mean, hell are we going to start scrubbing Edison's name off of everything just because all the PETA people are offended that he used to electrocute dogs, cats, horses (and even an elephant i believe) just to prove that inefficient DC is safer than Tesla's magical, "can transmit through the air and electrocute you to death while walking down the street" AC? No we shouldn't just because we hate their personal beliefs and actions. First of all we shouldn't scrub them from the history books so we don't forget their atrocities and failings, but secondly we shouldn't scrub them out because the contribution has had a far more valuable and beneficial contribution to society. Like I pointed out in another comment you say it's bad because the idea led to a horrifying geopolitical conclusion. But what about all of the medical miracles that eugenics led to like establishments of bioengineering in both crops and microbiology? You could literally say that people like Robert A Milikan are indirectly responsible for all the lives saved with this COVID vaccine just as much as he is indirectly responsible for all the lives lost in the holocaust. Idk, was he probably a shitty human being? Sure but so were most of our grandparents. Are we going to start chiseling out the names on tombstones so society doesn't have to suffer the eyesores of their cultural blights?

AlotOfReading 6y ago
Despite your arguments in an earlier (deleted) comment, eugenics is not good science. Furthermore, this isn't "scrubbing them from the history books". It's removing their names from some awards and buildings. You'll still be able to find their papers in the library and read about them on Wikipedia.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]