4 ms·

Reminds me of Lysenkoism where one mans delusions of science https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism set back the disc

Reminds me of Lysenkoism where one mans delusions of science https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism set back the discourse as it was enforced as state policy.

freemint 5y ago
Cybernetics was also deemed a bourgeoisie science for a while. This changed later.
- baybal2 5y ago
  [dead]
inglor_cz 5y ago
I wonder where we are now. Long shadows of Hitler and eugenics do certainly have a chilling effect on research of intelligence etc. This article published last year in the New Yorker goes into details. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/09/13/can-progressives-be-convinced-that-genetics-matters https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/09/13/can-progressiv... I get the political unease that surrounds such topics, but with things like CRISPR making gene editing possible, we could improve inborn traits in living humans one day - provided that we actually know what we are doing.
- woodruffw 5y ago
  Gene therapy and eugenics are different things. CRISPR falls under the former.
  - inglor_cz 5y ago
    They overlap, though. Or, more precisely, gene therapy can be used as a means to achieve certain eugenic ends. If, in 2030 or 2050, it will be possible to use CRISPR or another newer technology to edit out detrimental alleles out of someone's DNA safely, the end effect on the genetic pool of humanity is going to be very similar to the one that eugenicists tried to achieve via more primitive means.
    - mannykannot 5y ago
      If all that eugenics was or is concerned with was the removal of some harmful alleles by consensual methods, and it was not a pile of often racist bullshit falsely claiming to be based on what is actually solid science, it would not have a bad name.
      - inglor_cz 5y ago
        There is a lot of stuff in between. For example, Down syndrome can be practically eradicated by selectively aborting aneuploid embryos. Of course, the embryo cannot consent, and while the parents can, institutional pressures can be put on them to make them change their mind. Countries like Iceland and Denmark abort almost all Down syndrome embryos. This article in The Atlantic does not seem to be completely OK with that, and The Atlantic is pretty representative for East Coast liberal viewpoints. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/12/the-last-children-of-down-syndrome/616928/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/12/the-las...
        throwaway0a5e 5y ago
        > institutional pressures can be put on them to make them change their mind. Which is a weird and arbitrary location to draw the line considering how those institutions tend to lean on other issues, or even the same issue in a slightly different context.
        inglor_cz 5y ago
        I wasn't trying to draw any line anywhere. It is notoriously hard to draw any lines when it comes to disabilities.
        throwaway0a5e 5y ago
        I'm saying it's a weird spot for them to draw a line.
        5y ago
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- tenpies 5y ago
  > Long shadows of Hitler and eugenics do certainly have a chilling effect on research of intelligence etc. Speaking solely about eugenics: it wasn't Hitler, eugenics were largely considered progressive at the time and the Right Thing To Do. Most of the Nordic countries today that Western countries admire have eugenics programs to some degree or another, they just don't use the word eugenics. You could argue that the US for example has one of the most "successful" eugenics programs in the world - just look up the demographics of the abortions funded by tax-payer money. You could also argue that many of the global NGOs that are popular among Western leaders today have a strong eugenics focus, but again, nobody uses that word. It's much easier to suggest that a population shouldn't reproduce by calling it feminism, empowerment, or simply making child-raising a luxury good.
  - homonculus1 5y ago
    Here's a fun game: search "Margaret Sanger quotes" and then count how many blue-pills you need to dose yourself to remain ideologically comfortable.
otabdeveloper4 5y ago
He was vindicated by modern science. His "delusions" were that epigenetics exist and are heritable. (His opponents took a polar, more hardline stance that only genetic information is relevant for phenotype expression.) See more here: https://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&q=heritable%20epigenetics https://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&q=heritable%20epigene...
- thriftwy 5y ago
  If only he did not resort to using political means instead of science to push his views, he could have been considered a visionary (like Vernadsky or Oparin). Instead, he's just a criminal and a fraud.
  - otabdeveloper4 5y ago
    Yes, it was a story of political conflict, not a story about science.
- simonh 5y ago
  >He was vindicated by modern science. He denied that genetic heritability existed and that all characteristics were propagated epigenetically. That's hardly been vindicated. In practice his theories and practical policies were utterly disastrous. It is true that since then we have found some mechanisms by which some traits can propagate epigenetically, but characterising that as vindicating Lysenkoism is absurd.
  - thesz 5y ago
    I believe he denied existence of genes, not heretability of traits.
    - mannykannot 5y ago
      His theories were mostly pseudoscientific nonsense - but that alone is not particularly harmful. What was evil about him is that he literally destroyed other people’s lives, his most prominent victim being Vavilov.

freemint 5y ago

Cybernetics was also deemed a bourgeoisie science for a while. This changed later.

baybal2 5y ago
[dead]

inglor_cz 5y ago

I wonder where we are now. Long shadows of Hitler and eugenics do certainly have a chilling effect on research of intelligence etc. This article published last year in the New Yorker goes into details. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/09/13/can-progressives-be-convinced-that-genetics-matters https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/09/13/can-progressiv... I get the political unease that surrounds such topics, but with things like CRISPR making gene editing possible, we could improve inborn traits in living humans one day - provided that we actually know what we are doing.

woodruffw 5y ago
Gene therapy and eugenics are different things. CRISPR falls under the former.
- inglor_cz 5y ago
  They overlap, though. Or, more precisely, gene therapy can be used as a means to achieve certain eugenic ends. If, in 2030 or 2050, it will be possible to use CRISPR or another newer technology to edit out detrimental alleles out of someone's DNA safely, the end effect on the genetic pool of humanity is going to be very similar to the one that eugenicists tried to achieve via more primitive means.
  - mannykannot 5y ago
    If all that eugenics was or is concerned with was the removal of some harmful alleles by consensual methods, and it was not a pile of often racist bullshit falsely claiming to be based on what is actually solid science, it would not have a bad name.
    - inglor_cz 5y ago
      There is a lot of stuff in between. For example, Down syndrome can be practically eradicated by selectively aborting aneuploid embryos. Of course, the embryo cannot consent, and while the parents can, institutional pressures can be put on them to make them change their mind. Countries like Iceland and Denmark abort almost all Down syndrome embryos. This article in The Atlantic does not seem to be completely OK with that, and The Atlantic is pretty representative for East Coast liberal viewpoints. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/12/the-last-children-of-down-syndrome/616928/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/12/the-las...
      - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
        > institutional pressures can be put on them to make them change their mind. Which is a weird and arbitrary location to draw the line considering how those institutions tend to lean on other issues, or even the same issue in a slightly different context.
        inglor_cz 5y ago
        I wasn't trying to draw any line anywhere. It is notoriously hard to draw any lines when it comes to disabilities.
        throwaway0a5e 5y ago
        I'm saying it's a weird spot for them to draw a line.
      - 5y ago
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
tenpies 5y ago
> Long shadows of Hitler and eugenics do certainly have a chilling effect on research of intelligence etc. Speaking solely about eugenics: it wasn't Hitler, eugenics were largely considered progressive at the time and the Right Thing To Do. Most of the Nordic countries today that Western countries admire have eugenics programs to some degree or another, they just don't use the word eugenics. You could argue that the US for example has one of the most "successful" eugenics programs in the world - just look up the demographics of the abortions funded by tax-payer money. You could also argue that many of the global NGOs that are popular among Western leaders today have a strong eugenics focus, but again, nobody uses that word. It's much easier to suggest that a population shouldn't reproduce by calling it feminism, empowerment, or simply making child-raising a luxury good.
- homonculus1 5y ago
  Here's a fun game: search "Margaret Sanger quotes" and then count how many blue-pills you need to dose yourself to remain ideologically comfortable.

otabdeveloper4 5y ago

He was vindicated by modern science. His "delusions" were that epigenetics exist and are heritable. (His opponents took a polar, more hardline stance that only genetic information is relevant for phenotype expression.) See more here: https://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&q=heritable%20epigenetics https://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&q=heritable%20epigene...

thriftwy 5y ago
If only he did not resort to using political means instead of science to push his views, he could have been considered a visionary (like Vernadsky or Oparin). Instead, he's just a criminal and a fraud.
- otabdeveloper4 5y ago
  Yes, it was a story of political conflict, not a story about science.
simonh 5y ago
>He was vindicated by modern science. He denied that genetic heritability existed and that all characteristics were propagated epigenetically. That's hardly been vindicated. In practice his theories and practical policies were utterly disastrous. It is true that since then we have found some mechanisms by which some traits can propagate epigenetically, but characterising that as vindicating Lysenkoism is absurd.
- thesz 5y ago
  I believe he denied existence of genes, not heretability of traits.
  - mannykannot 5y ago
    His theories were mostly pseudoscientific nonsense - but that alone is not particularly harmful. What was evil about him is that he literally destroyed other people’s lives, his most prominent victim being Vavilov.