Skip to content

The Return Of Eugenics

Recommended reading
Today’s article is at Crisis Magazine.

The academy is no longer satisfied with raising consciousness. Progress has been too slow, you see. Something quicker has been judged necessary lest Utopia forever recede into the distance. But what?

Since the Bokanovsky Process has not yet been perfected (let him that readeth understand), academics looked elsewhere. They have already convinced us that to kill the lives inside women is A-Okay because these lives are inside and not outside. Well, sometimes outside. As long as nobody’s looking.

Anyway, the tenured asked, “Why not use this killing more systematically, more scientifically?” Instead of just killing to free up a woman’s time for more shopping, we could kill those lives inside women who were judged suboptimal. Brilliant!

The old way was to let the lives escape into the wild and then sterilize them if they weren’t up to snuff. Too messy. Inefficient, too. Not to mention expensive. Killing, as history shows us, is the cleanest method.

Think I’m exaggerating? Read the article to see that I’m rather underplaying it.

Update “In vitro eugenics” is coming, predicts Australian bioethicist…

12 thoughts on “The Return Of Eugenics Leave a comment

  1. CONSIDER (from the linked article): “…claims, “We now know that most psychological characteristics are significantly determined by certain genes,” like, the “COMT gene” which selects for altruism (new-eugenicists really go for altruism).””

    That can be filed under, “A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.”

    We know (technically some biologists who study this sort of thing know) that genes are commonly “triggered,” or not, at particular points in development. Sometimes they interact in concert with other genes & developmental processes. Thus, the presence of a gene associated with a particular trait is hardly evidence that that particular trait will manifest. There’s still a lot of variability.

    So, the quote illustrates some numbnut’s inclination to charge off, “half-cocked” as the saying goes, when armed with a little bit of facts at best poorly understood–and hardly understood in relation to other known factors (or, in relation to unknown factors we know exist, or know probably exist). The layman’s term for that is “stupid.” Given the subject & its effects, this is also dangerous … especially considering how limited are our (humanity’s) efforts at genetic manipulation of livestock, plants, etc. what possible rationale says “we” are even remotely close to tampering with ourselves in this way???

    A historical site for eugenics is: http://eugenicsarchive.org/eugenics/

    Another is: http://eugenicsarchive.org/eugenics/list3.pl — at that link is a pop-up (via the “Social Origins” link) with a brief historical snippet, including this line:

    “When many people first learn about eugenics, they wonder how intelligent people, including some highly educated scientists, could have believed so many seemingly bizarre ideas. How could anyone accept the simplistic notion that complex human behaviors are determined by single genes….”

    History is said to repeat, or not–as Mark Twain put it ‘it might not repeat [exactly] but it rhymes’….here we go again….

  2. But utopia is always in the future. George Orwell used to ask the communists, where’s the omelet? They always assured him it would be ready soon.

  3. From the Crisis article: “Kill him, too, if he’s saddled with “a certain type of the MA0A gene” which is “linked to higher levels of violence in children who often suffer abuse or deprivation.”

    So rather than NOT abusing or depriving children, we should just cull them. More horrors from the tolerant, compassionate (did we mention altruistic) Progressives.

  4. You might not be overplaying it if the Crisis article you refer to was a fair representation of what the “tenured professors” were actually saying.
    But it’s not. If you want to raise a lynch mob why not go all the way and accuse them of advocating the killing of all children whose parents might be liable to infect them with religion.

    P.S. This should *not* be taken as defense or approval of what the people you misrepresent actually did say.

  5. Oh dear. Because a couple of academics are disussing eugenetics, all academics are therefore the epitome of evil. This is the same as saying that because a couple of Catholic priests are pedophiles, all Catholics are part of a pedophilic conspiracy.

  6. Sanderr,

    Wrong inference and wrong facts. It is many more than “a couple”, as I demonstrated. And just as in the Catholic Church, it is time for recognition that something has gone wrong, and that steps should be taken to correct it. For the Church, it was acknowledged that ordaining men who were “oriented” towards juvenile boys was unwise. For the academy, perhaps we can admit that awarding tenure to the bloodthirsty is not so terrific.

  7. All,

    My favorite (thus far) comment from Crisis:

    Uhhhh….I suppose the good Mr. Briggs (an adjunct Professor of Statistics at Cornell University, with specialties in medicine and the philosophy of science no?) has either never heard of EPIGENETIC FACTORS THAT CLEARLY OFFER REASONS FOR BEHAVIORAL DIFFERENCES IN MONOZYGOTIC TWINS OR HE’S MERELY BEING A DISINGENUOUS WORM IN ORDER TO FURTHER THE VATICAN’S AGENDA :/

    I deduce I am a good disingenuous worm in the secret employ of the Pope. Beats being, say, an accountant.

  8. @APL

    “More horrors from the tolerant, compassionate (did we mention altruistic) Progressives”

    Eugenics have very little to do with progressive. Yes, there are some people who may hold some progressive stand point or idea that can be eugenist, but you can also find conservatist who supported and would support such idea.

    Most of the laws that were past in the 1920s to restrict immigration were base on eugenist theories, were pass by conservative state to protect the anglo-saxons stock.

    As one of my colleague who research the eugenics movement said, at first the argument used by the eugenics were similar to those used by progressive, but with the war and after the argument became very conservatives and violent and many laws to restrict immigration were enacted. The conservatives also led to the prohibition.

    As for being tolerant, any extreme is not tolerant, just look at the gun debate to see how the gun nuts try to silence the debate.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *