5 ms·

The Sinister Return of Eugenics

13 points by colinb 5y ago

beardyw 5y ago
I learned a lot, but not convinced by the "return".
- smt88 5y ago
  Anecdata, but concerning: - My ex is an evolutionary biologist, and their professional events often have talks about how (or whether) to push back on eugenicists trying to twist your research. Her colleague had a paper that was all over white supremacist sites, even though her conclusion was the opposite of eugenic. - I know a Chinese American VC who firmly believes certain races are less intelligent than others because of their race. He went to Stanford and has no other conservative views, to my knowledge. - The most popular podcast in the world featured unchallenged eugenicist comments[1] based on debunked science. It's hard to prove a major trend, but a very mainstream media company (Spotify) having unchecked eugenicist content in their most popular podcast is certainly not something you could find in comparable media ~20 years ago. 1. https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/technology/deleted-joe-rogan-episode-featured-guest-claiming-black-people-had-a-genetic-proclivity-to-violence/ar-AATyQCi https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/technology/deleted-joe-rogan...
  - beardyw 5y ago
    Thanks, I learned more! I had no idea.
  - netizen-936824 5y ago
    I think we should also take into account the rate, width, and ease of communication these days. The percentage of the population which subscribes to eugenics may have held constant (or not, I'm not making an argument one way or the other) and its just easier to hear more of their voices with our new communication tech. I'm also not saying the ideology isn't concerning either, I just think we need to consider looking at the issue from a few different perspectives to get a better understanding of the situation
    - smt88 5y ago
      You may be right. I just don't think you can collect accurate data on this topic from any angle. I think we can at least feel confident that there is far greater ease of broadcasting eugenic ideas to credulous masses. We've seen from the anti-vax movement that a small handful (meaning fewer than 10) of determined, unscrupulous, and wealthy people can convince millions of people of pseudoscientific ideas.
  - yucky 5y ago
    >believes certain races are less intelligent than others because of their race. He went to Stanford and has no other conservative views That isn't a conservative view though.
    - smt88 5y ago
      > That isn't a conservative view though. It is in the US[1] and every other country I know of. But let's define "conservative" first. According to Dictionary.com, it means: > "disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change."[2] Or to put it another way: to be conservative is to want to maintain the status quo or even return to the past. And what is eugenics? It is an idea of the past. If you have a different definition of liberal or conservative, or you can find research that shows that conservatives have less negative views of the intelligence of non-European people, I would be interested to see it. Even common phrases -- "progressive" vs. "traditional" views on race -- are used as euphemisms, where "traditional views" are more prejudiced. This is why people talk about their racist grandmother and not their racist grandson. It is also why older people are more likely to see increasing racial diversity in the US as a bad thing[3], compared to other age groups. Old people are also more traditional, more conservative, and more Republican, on average. 1. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/03/31/the-gap-between-republicans-and-democrats-views-of-african-americans-just-hit-a-new-high/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/03/31/th... 2. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/conservative https://www.dictionary.com/browse/conservative 3. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/08/23/most-americans-say-the-declining-share-of-white-people-in-the-u-s-is-neither-good-nor-bad-for-society/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/08/23/most-americ...
      - yucky 5y ago
        > "progressive" vs. "traditional" views on race -- are used as euphemisms, where "traditional views" are more prejudiced That's not true though. Allow me to demonstrate. Ask any progressive the following question: Do you think the government and educational institutions should treat people differently based on the color of their skin - yes or no? Now watch that progressive either a)change the subject and evade answering the question.. or b)Justify their reasoning for why they think people should be treated differently based on their skin color. This is (by definition) support of racial discrimination. Many progressives have even gone so far as to claim the concept of racial equality is not progressive, demanding instead policies that seek to achieve racial equity, a concept that requires racial discrimination to implement. So progressives literally support polices that require racial preferences/prejudice. As to conservatives, they support equal treatment under the law regardless of race. At worst you could accuse some of supporting polices that could potentially have disparate impact. But progressives support actual racial discrimination. Which is worse, in your mind?
derbOac 5y ago
The problem with transhumanism is in the inequality it potentially engenders and the subsequent questions it poses about moral models of responsibility. If you can engineer a better human, aren't you now obligated to accept responsibility for the failings of those you don't improve? You can't control the behavior of the improved, albeit stochastically and indirectly, without implicitly accepting that those you don't aren't responsible.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- thatguy0900 5y ago
  I don't think that tracks with how we currently treat kids. We already know how to engineer a better human with high quality childhood nutrition and education and we could go even further with parental support programs, but what you get as a child is already entirely up to where you are born.
- Dracophoenix 5y ago
  Your argument depends on a flawed and deterministic outlook of human improvement. Your premise that there is a mandate of responsibility to "better" other human beings is the justification of the philosopher-king dictatorship. It eerily resembles the argument made by Soviet Russia for push towards homo sovieticus. There is no such thing an inherent responsibility towards bettering others. Responsibilities are instruments, not ends in and of themselves. If wanting to "ascend" to being a greater individual is the choice of said of the individual, he should every right to, crab bucket be dammed.
  - derbOac 5y ago
    I think logically if you accept the premise that some can be improved, then you have to answer the question of why not others. It's a moral opportunity cost, and equivalent to withholding food or water. The costs compound to society at large though if withholding improvement affects others. It's a moral question that has nothing to do with economic systems.
hellothere1337 5y ago
More fundamentally however eugenics is baked into reality. For a simple example look at how well you are when you are handsome, smart, healthy, tall and fit. And look at how you are treated when you are the opposite. I do not want to add any ethical qualifier to this but it is reality.
- ladyattis 5y ago
  The shinier the shield, the darker the heart. Don't always assume someone who looks conventionally attract are good folk. I've had plenty of 'smilers' in my day that made my blood run cold when they turned on me.
afpx 5y ago
The pendulum swing of liberalism seems to naturally lead to Eugenics, when it's at it extreme. When I talk with my liberal friends, that's where discussions often end up - "Well, the dumb people are just fucking everything up." Even Sapolsky cites evidence of conservatives being less intelligent - suggesting, ironically, that they're a lesser category of people.
nonrandomstring 5y ago
This line stood out for me: "The capacity to give and receive love may be more central to the good life than self-admiring cleverness."
silent_cal 5y ago
Eugenics is the most obvious example of the moral failure of utilitarianism, which in the end is really just man's attempt to invent morality for himself. In the end it results in an extremely ugly and selfish worldview. The "unfit" are to be exterminated in utero, the poor are to be prevented or dissuaded from reproducing. The claim is that this is better for the environment or for humanity as a whole, but I say the truth is that it's more convenient for the elite class who invented this evil ideology in the first place.

13 points by colinb 5y ago

beardyw 5y ago

I learned a lot, but not convinced by the "return".

smt88 5y ago
Anecdata, but concerning: - My ex is an evolutionary biologist, and their professional events often have talks about how (or whether) to push back on eugenicists trying to twist your research. Her colleague had a paper that was all over white supremacist sites, even though her conclusion was the opposite of eugenic. - I know a Chinese American VC who firmly believes certain races are less intelligent than others because of their race. He went to Stanford and has no other conservative views, to my knowledge. - The most popular podcast in the world featured unchallenged eugenicist comments[1] based on debunked science. It's hard to prove a major trend, but a very mainstream media company (Spotify) having unchecked eugenicist content in their most popular podcast is certainly not something you could find in comparable media ~20 years ago. 1. https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/technology/deleted-joe-rogan-episode-featured-guest-claiming-black-people-had-a-genetic-proclivity-to-violence/ar-AATyQCi https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/technology/deleted-joe-rogan...
- beardyw 5y ago
  Thanks, I learned more! I had no idea.
- netizen-936824 5y ago
  I think we should also take into account the rate, width, and ease of communication these days. The percentage of the population which subscribes to eugenics may have held constant (or not, I'm not making an argument one way or the other) and its just easier to hear more of their voices with our new communication tech. I'm also not saying the ideology isn't concerning either, I just think we need to consider looking at the issue from a few different perspectives to get a better understanding of the situation
  - smt88 5y ago
    You may be right. I just don't think you can collect accurate data on this topic from any angle. I think we can at least feel confident that there is far greater ease of broadcasting eugenic ideas to credulous masses. We've seen from the anti-vax movement that a small handful (meaning fewer than 10) of determined, unscrupulous, and wealthy people can convince millions of people of pseudoscientific ideas.
- yucky 5y ago
  >believes certain races are less intelligent than others because of their race. He went to Stanford and has no other conservative views That isn't a conservative view though.
  - smt88 5y ago
    > That isn't a conservative view though. It is in the US[1] and every other country I know of. But let's define "conservative" first. According to Dictionary.com, it means: > "disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change."[2] Or to put it another way: to be conservative is to want to maintain the status quo or even return to the past. And what is eugenics? It is an idea of the past. If you have a different definition of liberal or conservative, or you can find research that shows that conservatives have less negative views of the intelligence of non-European people, I would be interested to see it. Even common phrases -- "progressive" vs. "traditional" views on race -- are used as euphemisms, where "traditional views" are more prejudiced. This is why people talk about their racist grandmother and not their racist grandson. It is also why older people are more likely to see increasing racial diversity in the US as a bad thing[3], compared to other age groups. Old people are also more traditional, more conservative, and more Republican, on average. 1. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/03/31/the-gap-between-republicans-and-democrats-views-of-african-americans-just-hit-a-new-high/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/03/31/th... 2. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/conservative https://www.dictionary.com/browse/conservative 3. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/08/23/most-americans-say-the-declining-share-of-white-people-in-the-u-s-is-neither-good-nor-bad-for-society/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/08/23/most-americ...
    - yucky 5y ago
      > "progressive" vs. "traditional" views on race -- are used as euphemisms, where "traditional views" are more prejudiced That's not true though. Allow me to demonstrate. Ask any progressive the following question: Do you think the government and educational institutions should treat people differently based on the color of their skin - yes or no? Now watch that progressive either a)change the subject and evade answering the question.. or b)Justify their reasoning for why they think people should be treated differently based on their skin color. This is (by definition) support of racial discrimination. Many progressives have even gone so far as to claim the concept of racial equality is not progressive, demanding instead policies that seek to achieve racial equity, a concept that requires racial discrimination to implement. So progressives literally support polices that require racial preferences/prejudice. As to conservatives, they support equal treatment under the law regardless of race. At worst you could accuse some of supporting polices that could potentially have disparate impact. But progressives support actual racial discrimination. Which is worse, in your mind?

derbOac 5y ago

The problem with transhumanism is in the inequality it potentially engenders and the subsequent questions it poses about moral models of responsibility. If you can engineer a better human, aren't you now obligated to accept responsibility for the failings of those you don't improve? You can't control the behavior of the improved, albeit stochastically and indirectly, without implicitly accepting that those you don't aren't responsible.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
thatguy0900 5y ago
I don't think that tracks with how we currently treat kids. We already know how to engineer a better human with high quality childhood nutrition and education and we could go even further with parental support programs, but what you get as a child is already entirely up to where you are born.
Dracophoenix 5y ago
Your argument depends on a flawed and deterministic outlook of human improvement. Your premise that there is a mandate of responsibility to "better" other human beings is the justification of the philosopher-king dictatorship. It eerily resembles the argument made by Soviet Russia for push towards homo sovieticus. There is no such thing an inherent responsibility towards bettering others. Responsibilities are instruments, not ends in and of themselves. If wanting to "ascend" to being a greater individual is the choice of said of the individual, he should every right to, crab bucket be dammed.
- derbOac 5y ago
  I think logically if you accept the premise that some can be improved, then you have to answer the question of why not others. It's a moral opportunity cost, and equivalent to withholding food or water. The costs compound to society at large though if withholding improvement affects others. It's a moral question that has nothing to do with economic systems.

hellothere1337 5y ago

More fundamentally however eugenics is baked into reality. For a simple example look at how well you are when you are handsome, smart, healthy, tall and fit. And look at how you are treated when you are the opposite. I do not want to add any ethical qualifier to this but it is reality.

ladyattis 5y ago
The shinier the shield, the darker the heart. Don't always assume someone who looks conventionally attract are good folk. I've had plenty of 'smilers' in my day that made my blood run cold when they turned on me.

afpx 5y ago

The pendulum swing of liberalism seems to naturally lead to Eugenics, when it's at it extreme. When I talk with my liberal friends, that's where discussions often end up - "Well, the dumb people are just fucking everything up." Even Sapolsky cites evidence of conservatives being less intelligent - suggesting, ironically, that they're a lesser category of people.

nonrandomstring 5y ago

This line stood out for me: "The capacity to give and receive love may be more central to the good life than self-admiring cleverness."

silent_cal 5y ago

Eugenics is the most obvious example of the moral failure of utilitarianism, which in the end is really just man's attempt to invent morality for himself. In the end it results in an extremely ugly and selfish worldview. The "unfit" are to be exterminated in utero, the poor are to be prevented or dissuaded from reproducing. The claim is that this is better for the environment or for humanity as a whole, but I say the truth is that it's more convenient for the elite class who invented this evil ideology in the first place.