3 ms·

Eugenics absolutely was fringe in the early 1900s. To claim otherwise is revisionist. The fact that they got as far as they did, even passing laws in some sta

Eugenics absolutely was fringe in the early 1900s. To claim otherwise is revisionist. The fact that they got as far as they did, even passing laws in some states, is testament to what happens when people outsource their thinking to the experts and the experts engaged in extreme policy not supported by the people. Make no mistake, the policy would have worked but the end did not justify the means outside of the circle jerk in which the "experts" and were living. The fact that the fringe was unable to convert the broader public is why the overwhelming majority of eugenics policy was unilaterally adopted by institutions (government or otherwise) vs being legislated by politicians and that's because people didn't really want it en-masse.

ceejayoz 4y ago
Can you perhaps elaborate on your definition of "fringe"? "Official policy of 30+ states and upheld by SCOTUS" doesn't fit mine.
- dsfyu404ed 4y ago
  Eugenics came and went over the careers timeline of the people who peddled it (as most of these policy fads do). At best it was tolerated by the uninvolved masses. Things like women voting, gay rights, etc. managed to persist after the people who staked their careers on it and would be compelled to peddle it croaked. Eugenics failed to convert the masses (good). That official policy of what you speak is just that, unilateral policy by various government institutions (usually prison systems and public health institutions). Most states didn't manage to get it through the legislature in any meaningful capacity because it was not something the masses cared for and therefore not something that a politician could earn votes peddling. It was as endorsed by the masses as some DOT policy about pothole patching would be.
  - actionfromafar 4y ago
    Pothole fixing is very mainstream, I'd say. Eugenics got a bad reputation because of a certain moustachioed leader in Germany.
  - fnordpiglet 4y ago
    You don’t think the outcome of WWII might have changed minds and hearts instead? Most literature I’ve read was eugenics became deeply unpopular following a realization of what the Nazis had done.
fnordpiglet 4y ago
Do you have any references that support this lack of support? Everything I have ever read points to a general acceptance as being a modern and scientific theory if not a direct moral imperative at that time. It wasn’t until the results of WWII were unpacked and civil rights debated was it really revisited on a humanist basis. I would be genuinely glad to read material that refutes this.
hgomersall 4y ago
This is more or less where we are now with mainstream macroeconomics - a previously fringe theory becomes dominant and too many people stop thinking in deference to the experts.
wizofaus 4y ago
"the policy would have worked" - in what sense? Are you genuinely arguing that eugenicists would have objectively and accurately determined which genes led to strongest/most intelligent/most productive humans and only allowed people with those genes to reproduce, and successfully ensured "defective" genes were eliminated from the homo sapiens gene pool? Even if somehow they had achieved that, the thought of living in a society where a human life is only considered valuable if it fits some predefined criteria is frankly far too high a cost to pay. (Interestingly I was watching Man in the High Castle last night, the episode that "celebrates" the choice of one of the characters to have himself be euthanised because of an incurable medical condition. It was an odd experience because superficially it came across as a very powerful and moving scene, despite the horrid underlying creepiness of it. But it didn't seem hard to believe that people could genuinely be swayed into thinking that it was a "noble" thing to have your life terminated just because of a particular genetic condition. I suppose at least it's a more justifiable stance than believing that anyone not of a particular race was undeserving of a fulfilling life, though clearly many eugenicists believed exactly that too).

ceejayoz 4y ago

Can you perhaps elaborate on your definition of "fringe"? "Official policy of 30+ states and upheld by SCOTUS" doesn't fit mine.

dsfyu404ed 4y ago
Eugenics came and went over the careers timeline of the people who peddled it (as most of these policy fads do). At best it was tolerated by the uninvolved masses. Things like women voting, gay rights, etc. managed to persist after the people who staked their careers on it and would be compelled to peddle it croaked. Eugenics failed to convert the masses (good). That official policy of what you speak is just that, unilateral policy by various government institutions (usually prison systems and public health institutions). Most states didn't manage to get it through the legislature in any meaningful capacity because it was not something the masses cared for and therefore not something that a politician could earn votes peddling. It was as endorsed by the masses as some DOT policy about pothole patching would be.
- actionfromafar 4y ago
  Pothole fixing is very mainstream, I'd say. Eugenics got a bad reputation because of a certain moustachioed leader in Germany.
- fnordpiglet 4y ago
  You don’t think the outcome of WWII might have changed minds and hearts instead? Most literature I’ve read was eugenics became deeply unpopular following a realization of what the Nazis had done.

fnordpiglet 4y ago

Do you have any references that support this lack of support? Everything I have ever read points to a general acceptance as being a modern and scientific theory if not a direct moral imperative at that time. It wasn’t until the results of WWII were unpacked and civil rights debated was it really revisited on a humanist basis. I would be genuinely glad to read material that refutes this.

hgomersall 4y ago

This is more or less where we are now with mainstream macroeconomics - a previously fringe theory becomes dominant and too many people stop thinking in deference to the experts.

wizofaus 4y ago

"the policy would have worked" - in what sense? Are you genuinely arguing that eugenicists would have objectively and accurately determined which genes led to strongest/most intelligent/most productive humans and only allowed people with those genes to reproduce, and successfully ensured "defective" genes were eliminated from the homo sapiens gene pool? Even if somehow they had achieved that, the thought of living in a society where a human life is only considered valuable if it fits some predefined criteria is frankly far too high a cost to pay. (Interestingly I was watching Man in the High Castle last night, the episode that "celebrates" the choice of one of the characters to have himself be euthanised because of an incurable medical condition. It was an odd experience because superficially it came across as a very powerful and moving scene, despite the horrid underlying creepiness of it. But it didn't seem hard to believe that people could genuinely be swayed into thinking that it was a "noble" thing to have your life terminated just because of a particular genetic condition. I suppose at least it's a more justifiable stance than believing that anyone not of a particular race was undeserving of a fulfilling life, though clearly many eugenicists believed exactly that too).