6mo ago

Please Help Reverse This

You're viewing part of a thread.

Show Context

190 comments

Yes, have kids.
But the mechanics don't matter, since eugenics don't rely on genes. Taking away the children of native American parents, since those were deemed "unfit to raise them properly" was once eugenicist practices. Eugenics doesn't rely on genetics at all.
It doesn't matter if the justification is "genes", or "capabilities of raising children", or cosmic radiation or whatever.
Is it considered eugenics to control who gets to adopt babies?
Kind of? That one's a grey area and it depends on e.g. motivation. Can gay people not adopt children? I'd say that reeks of eugenics. Can a household that clearly can't care for the well-being of a child not adopt? I'd argue that's not eugenistic.
- Can you share a source that discusses eugenics without the context of biologically inherited traits? I did a search for "eugenics native American children" and all of the hits discuss forced sterilization, which reinforces my belief that mechanics do matter because eugenics does rely on genes.
  When discussing taking away the children of native Americans, I believe that falls under genocide, instead of eugenics. Also bad, but different bad.
  To get the conversation started, here's the definition of eugenics provided by a few common sources:
  Eugenics (/juːˈdʒɛnɪks/ yoo-JEN-iks; from Ancient Greek εύ̃ (eû) 'good, well', and -γενής (genḗs) 'born, come into being, growing/grown')[1] is a set of beliefs and practices that aim to improve the genetic quality of a human population.[2][3][4]
  the practice or advocacy of controlled selective breeding of human populations (as by sterilization) to improve the populations' genetic composition
  The study of methods of improving the quality of human populations by the application of genetic principles.
  
  Not everything inheritaple is based on genes. If two people who love playing the violin get children,I'll guaranteeyou that their offspring will know one thing or two about violins.
  Culture can be inherited, too. Which is mainly why first nation people were sterilized: to effectively genocide their culture.
  I don't think that definitionss help too much with these kinds of discussion, since they ignore the historical context of a historical phenomenon.
  
  We're in agreement on that - I was stating earlier that there are social aspects that can be "inherited", for example, the nurture segment of intelligence.
  However at the end of the day, every definition I've seen for eugenics focuses on the biological inherited traits, and none mention these socially/culturally inherited ones. Intelligence is impacted by both biologically inherited traits as well as socially inherited traits, which is why I'm proposing that eugenics, which I've not seen defined to cover socially inherited traits, is only a potential driver. In the absence of the movie explicitly calling out the lack of an "intelligence gene", failing social nets not preventing socially/culturally inherited stupidity is an equally valid reason.
  
  You're simply going to ignore the historical context, are you?
  
  I've asked multiple times for sources discussing eugenics outside of the scope of biologically inherited traits.
  If the historical context you're describing does not fall under that request, it's not relevant because we'd circle back around to eugenics necessitating biologically inherited traits. If the historical context you're describing does fall under that request, I'm all ears.
  Similar to how I understand your example of taking away native American children to fall under genocide and not eugenics, I suspect there's a misunderstanding in the definition of eugenics.
  
  I've asked multiple times for sources discussing eugenics outside of the scope of biologically inherited traits.
  Haven't you already given examples with sterilization of indigenous people?
  Race "science" was always an excuse for racism. First racism, then race. Notthe other way around.
  You can genocide people through eugenics (culturally repressive control of reproduction).
  
  I've asked multiple times for sources discussing eugenics outside of the scope of biologically inherited traits.
  Haven't you already given examples with sterilization of indigenous people?
  Sterilization is 100% in the realm of biologically inherited traits, as it prevents the passing on of genes, so no, that is not what I'm asking for.
  You can genocide people through eugenics, true, but taking kids away is genocide without eugenics as defined by all authoritative sources that I've seen, none of which have been contested.
  I'll ask for a 4th(?) time, are you able to share sources that discuss eugenics outside of the scope of biologically inherited traits?
  If not, then my take away is that you have a personal definition of eugenics that is not shared by society, and your opinions about the role of eugenics in this movie should be considered appropriately.
  
  Sterilization is 100% in the realm of biologically inherited traits, as it prevents the passing on of genes, so no, that is not what I'm asking for.
  Even if that was the case (I don't think it is), you're talking about our current understanding of biology. Scientists used to think that having a low IQ is a mental illness ("feeble-mindedness"), or that promiscuity is inheritable.
  Here's an example of what you asked for. I think it fits the premise of Idiocracy a lot.
  
  ..... sterilization would prevent the passing of genes by that individual by mechanism of no longer having kids. Biologically inherited traits are, by definition, determined by genes. These are facts. You can try to hand waive this away and say "who knows our current understanding of this may change in the future", but that then leaves us with "our current understanding of science informs us that your source did not discuss eugenics outside of the scope of biologically inherited traits"
  That legal case is once again, about sterilization, which is eugenics by way of preventing traits from being inherited biologically. I'm beginning to think you don't understand what I mean when I ask for a source discussing eugenics outside the scope of biologically inherited traits.
  Do you remember how you brought go that if two parents play violin, their kid probably will too? Would it be eugenics to prevent that kid from playing violin? Unless you believe coco to be a movie about the perils of eugenics, the answer should be no. Substitute passing down "a love for playing violin" with "not prioritizing education" and that explains Idiocracy, without eugenics.
  You are choosing to explain the outcome of Idiocracy with eugenics and you're choosing to ignore equally valid alternatives.
  
  You can try to hand waive this away and say "who knows our current understanding of this may change in the future"
  That's not what I'm saying. I was talking about the historical context. And again: the movie implies heavily that stupidity is inheritable, just like the historical example. Be it via nature or nurture.
  That legal case is once again, about sterilization, which is eugenics by way of preventing traits from being inherited biologically.
  Yeah. My original point was that Idiocracy is an eugencist movie by implying that stupidity is inherited. I don't believe that is the case, but the movie argues for it. Stop moving the goalposts.

190 comments