EUGENICS IS A PURE AMERICAN INVENTION

[AnonKat]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_in_the_United_States

Eugenics, the social movement claiming to improve the genetic features of human populations through selective breeding and sterilization,[1] based on the idea that it is possible to distinguish between superior and inferior elements of society,[2] played a significant role in the history and culture of the United States prior to its involvement in World War II.[3]

Eugenics was practised in the United States many years before eugenics programs in Nazi Germany[4] and actually, U.S. programs provided much of the inspiration for the latter.[5][6][7] Stefan Kühl has documented the consensus between Nazi race policies and those of eugenicists in other countries, including the United States, and points out that eugenicists understood Nazi policies and measures as the realization of their goals and demands.[5]

A hallmark of the Progressive Era of the late 19th and early 20th century, now generally associated with racist and nativist elements (as the movement was to some extent a reaction to a change in emigration from Europe) rather than scientific genetics, eugenics was considered a method of preserving and improving the dominant groups in the population.
Contents

 

[TG1]

Seriously, AnonKat? You think the United States was the first place where people wanted to control human breeding?

Surely, you kid.

Eugenics is a relatively new term. Try Googling "human breeding experiments" instead. And since you like Wikipedia, try this Wikipedia site:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_eugenics

Check out the eugenics policies of Sparta, Athens, Rome.

And then the more recent eugenics interests of about 30 other countries.

Now, get outta my way -- I want to go buy some more guns.

TG1

 

[AnonKat]

America was a new country with a constitution they seemed to love sin against, America has its sins, The founding fathers weren't listened to often it seems.

Eugenics is really systematic so yes Americans tought it up like the English tought up Concentrationcamps first.

Oh fuck this is nice, Altough the founding fathers built upon the way the Republic of the Netherlands was organized they said America was like Sparta, So you are all why did you block gay marriage ?

Seriously, AnonKat? You think the United States was the first place where people wanted to control human breeding?

Surely, you kid.

Eugenics is a relatively new term. Try Googling "human breeding experiments" instead. And since you like Wikipedia, try this Wikipedia site:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_eugenics

Check out the eugenics policies of Sparta, Athens, Rome.

And then the more recent eugenics interests of about 30 other countries.

Now, get outta my way -- I want to go buy some more guns.

TG1

 

[TG1]

AnonKat, read that article. You're wrong.

 

[TG1]

Besides, what's your point -- that Americans are basically evil?

 

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

Slavery and racism has been America's original sin.

The treatment of the Irish was Great Britain's original sin.

Every country's history has its black periods.

What counts is how a country changes.

But America's sins are all the more worse simply because we were founded on principles and have never entirely lived up to those principles.

Other countries just evolved from necessity.

But we continue to try and improve because we have always believed that we can do better.

The Anabaptist Jacques

 

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

Besides, what's your point -- that Americans are basically evil?

I think he's trying to absolved Germany for the Holocaust by blaming the idea on America.

But American Eugenics, based on the fear of immigration, especially from central Europe, didn't involved wiping out millions of people like Germany.

The Anabaptist Jacques

 

[AnonKat]

I think he's trying to absolved Germany for the Holocaust by blaming the idea on America.

But American Eugenics, based on the fear of immigration, especially from central Europe, didn't involved wiping out millions of people like Germany.

The Anabaptist Jacques

i seem to have been wrong again Eugenics was populair in every country before WWII

 

[AnonKat]

Besides, what's your point -- that Americans are basically evil?

No that the Nazi's took the ideas that were in the underbelly of even England or name your country to extreme, highlighting it's darkness

 

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

No that the Nazi's took the ideas that were in the underbelly of even England or name your country to extreme, highlighting it's darkness

Germany used Eugenics not as science but as an excuse given to others to get away with killing millions.

That is not a secret.

The Anabaptist Jacques

 

[AnonKat]

Germany used Eugenics not as science but as an excuse given to others to get away with killing millions.

That is not a secret.

The Anabaptist Jacques

Eugenics is not a Science anyway, And Germany didn't get away with it. And the whole world even Amerika where racist, anti semitic, homo haters and so on and so fort.

Henry ford loved the Nazis and Walt Disney hated jews like good old Mel gibson

 

[Thrak]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_in_the_United_States

Eugenics, the social movement claiming to improve the genetic features of human populations through selective breeding and sterilization,[1] based on the idea that it is possible to distinguish between superior and inferior elements of society,[2] played a significant role in the history and culture of the United States prior to its involvement in World War II.[3]

Eugenics was practised in the United States many years before eugenics programs in Nazi Germany[4] and actually, U.S. programs provided much of the inspiration for the latter.[5][6][7] Stefan Kühl has documented the consensus between Nazi race policies and those of eugenicists in other countries, including the United States, and points out that eugenicists understood Nazi policies and measures as the realization of their goals and demands.[5]

A hallmark of the Progressive Era of the late 19th and early 20th century, now generally associated with racist and nativist elements (as the movement was to some extent a reaction to a change in emigration from Europe) rather than scientific genetics, eugenics was considered a method of preserving and improving the dominant groups in the population.
Contents

I hate to break it to you but Eugenics comes from nature. Many species look for the healthiest to reproduce with and the sickly are shunned, avoided and sometimes killed in the interest of keeping the species strong. Nature is incredibly violent and humans are a product of nature. This doesn't mean we shouldn't try to change but when you realize all of this violent conduct goes even to the cellular level then a lot of things make a lot more sense. I would agree though that the US and Nazi Germany agreed about more things than the US would like others to believe.

 

[Mick Wenlock]

I hate to break it to you but Eugenics comes from nature. Many species look for the healthiest to reproduce with and the sickly are shunned, avoided and sometimes killed in the interest of keeping the species strong. Nature is incredibly violent and humans are a product of nature. This doesn't mean we shouldn't try to change but when you realize all of this violent conduct goes even to the cellular level then a lot of things make a lot more sense. I would agree though that the US and Nazi Germany agreed about more things than the US would like others to believe.

well you are not breaking anything factual - you are comflating a couple of things. Evolution favors the survival of the fittest but this is not an "active" measure it is a "passive" one. What determines "fittest" is the environment. The members of a species who prove better at surviving in a certain environment will, on balance and over time tend to outbreed those who do not. This is a bit like observing that water falls downwards of course. Because if the entire species proves unfitted for the environment - it disappears - a la dinosaurs.

So please cite your examples where "sometimes killed in the interests of keeping the species strong" - which species and which examples and which studies - because this sounds like anthropomorphizing, not actual observation. Yes nature is violent but it is violent in a non-specific way. Lions hunt and kill other animals in order to live - they cannot survive if they do not eat meat. they are not hunting the zebras because they are a lesser species, they are tracking down a cheeseburger.

 

[Thrak]

well you are not breaking anything factual - you are comflating a couple of things. Evolution favors the survival of the fittest but this is not an "active" measure it is a "passive" one. What determines "fittest" is the environment. The members of a species who prove better at surviving in a certain environment will, on balance and over time tend to outbreed those who do not. This is a bit like observing that water falls downwards of course. Because if the entire species proves unfitted for the environment - it disappears - a la dinosaurs.

So please cite your examples where "sometimes killed in the interests of keeping the species strong" - which species and which examples and which studies - because this sounds like anthropomorphizing, not actual observation. Yes nature is violent but it is violent in a non-specific way. Lions hunt and kill other animals in order to live - they cannot survive if they do not eat meat. they are not hunting the zebras because they are a lesser species, they are tracking down a cheeseburger.

Well ok, if you watch some of the mating rituals of various species even going into the insect level you'd see that a very large number of species are extremely picky about who they mate with and that it is quite an active measure. It's not nearly as mechanical as you portray. I saw a documentary about a female gorilla in captivity and the keepers found what they though was a good mate but she wasn't interested. They had to keep trying until they found a male that got her going if you will before they were successful. "Looks" are a factor in many species and looks are often a indicator of health. Many many species have elaborate mating dances where the female picks the most suitable mate by her own definition I guess and I've seen even some spiders have elaborate dances and rituals.

As far as examples of killing young which is what I was talking about haven't you ever watched nature shows? There are countless examples. Just look up infanticide.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanticide_(zoology)

There are numerous reasons for it but it happens in many species.

Also there is even a type of shark where the baby sharks while pre born fight to the death leaving the strongest surviving.

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/episodes/sharkland/animal-cannibalism/1946/

also

http://listverse.com/2010/09/04/top-10-fratricidal-baby-animals/

http://www.livescience.com/2053-animals-eat-offspring.html

It sounds like the cruellest thing of all - mothers and fathers brutally killing their animal offspring.

But for many animal infants, the greatest threat to their survival they face is from their own kind.

"It's not like a predation event, which is quiet," says lion expert Professor Craig Packer.

"During infanticide, it's growling and violent, and really pretty disturbing," he says, describing how adult lions kill cubs. "They bite them on the back of the head, and neck, crushing their abdomens."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/18035811

Meerkats are co-operative breeders but females are known to kill each other's litters
Infanticide is an often overlooked way of ensuring the survival of the fittest. It has been recorded in a number of species including mammals such as rodents and primates, and fish, insects and amphibians.

http://www.messybeast.com/kill_kit.htm

Females Killing Kittens

Kitten-killing is more often seen in females, simply because the tom is usually absent from the nest. There are numerous reasons for this behaviour.

As in tomcats, some females cannot switch off hunting behaviour in response to the presence of kittens. Some have poorly developed maternal instincts or they may have a hormonal imbalance so that the maternal behaviour is not triggered by pregnancy and kittening. Because the kittens may inherit this as a genetic trait (hypothetical but very feasible), it is wise not breed from such females again - not just to avoid the tragedy of seeing kittens killed by their mother, but to avoid the problem becoming more widespread. Females which haven't given birth may treat kittens born to other females as prey. Pregnancy and birthing cause hormones which generally trigger maternal instinct. A female without kittens has not gone thorugh this process and the size and sound of the kittens triggers her hunting instincts.

Some kittens are born with abnormalities that humans cannot detect. For this reason they may not thrive, they may even act or smell 'wrong' to the queen. Where one or two kittens are either killed or abandoned, these kittens are often found to be somehow 'faulty'. The mother simply does not want to waste energy on raising kittens that have little chance of survival. In addition, she has expended a lot of energy during pregnancy and she may eat all or part of some of these kittens in an attempt to recoup some of those losses (just as she eats placentas) and to dispose of 'carrion' that could potentially lead predators to her nest. The same goes for kittens which have an illness - she can smell the problem, humans cannot.

Kittens born at a 'bad time of year' e.g. early spring/late fall/winter in the wild state, have a poor chance of survival due to lack of prey. A number of female cats will kill litters born at 'bad times of the year' in order not to use up valuable energy in raising kittens when they themselves have problems in finding adequate food. This has been noted in feral cats.

Seriously do a Google search there's tons of stuff.


Also Eugenics was developed by a Brit and cousin of Darwin.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics

Once again it all brutality comes from nature. Maybe it's a noble goal to try to overcome it but nobody has any right to be surprised humans engage in this due to the violence of the world we evolved in.

 

[R2-45]

...

Maybe it's a noble goal to try to overcome it but nobody has any right to be surprised humans engage in this due to the violence of the world we evolved in.

Human intelligence is still undergoing evolution.



Some may prefer to call it devolution.

Human intelligence appears to be selecting itself out of the gene pool.

 

[Thrak]

Human intelligence is still undergoing evolution.



Some may prefer to call it devolution.

Human intelligence appears to be selecting itself out of the gene pool.

Yeah I don't think we're going anywhere but I know what you mean. I think we are extremely intelligent in some areas and less so than other animals in some areas. We're throwing the planet out of whack but nature will only put up with that for so long. We can live in space and underground so I think we'll deal with whatever plays out although there may be a lot less of us. The next hundred years should be interesting.

 

[Queenmab321]

I think it's very likely we'll see a second wave of eugenics, driven by new technologies in the field of genetic modification. Already, certain genetic disorders are being treated. When it becomes possible to genetically alter the genome so as to render people invulnerable to virtually all pathogens, I think it will be very difficult to resist doing so. Absent a very thoughtful public discussion about the ethics of involved (and probably in spite of it), we're likely to see, over the next 60 years or so, modifications that will alter appearance and intelligence.

 

[R2-45]

...

we're likely to see, over the next 60 years or so, modifications that will alter appearance and intelligence.

All it will take is one big mistake or a series of smaller errors carrying enough unintended or unforeseen consequences and those "modifications that will alter appearance and intelligence" will lead to a dead end. End of genome. Silence.

There is an even worse case. We may wipe the entire biosphere leaving only a thin soup of starving cannibalistic viruses.

 

[Danger Mouse]

Anyone interested in learning more about eugenics may enjoy reading "War Against The Weak" by Edwin Black.

http://www.amazon.com/War-Against-W...69280052&sr=8-1&keywords=war+against+the+weak

Black is very factual and even-handed in his approach. For example, he treads very carefully through the political minefield regarding the relationship between eugenics and Planned Parenthood. Extreme partisans on either side may be disappointed, but those who want to clearly understand the facts of the matter will be enlightened.

Adolph Hitler read the literature about eugenics when he was in prison following the Beer Hall Putsch. When two of the leading American proponents of eugenics met, they realized that they had both received fan letters from the same obscure Bavarian rabble-rouser!

 

[Queenmab321]

All it will take is one big mistake or a series of smaller errors carrying enough unintended or unforeseen consequences and those "modifications that will alter appearance and intelligence" will lead to a dead end. End of genome. Silence.

There is an even worse case. We may wipe the entire biosphere leaving only a thin soup of starving cannibalistic viruses.

Right, and three billion years later their descendants will be talking to each other on an internet discussion board.

Reminds me of this:

You cannot go against nature,
Because when you do,
Go against nature,
It's part of nature too.


-Love and Rockets, "No New Tale to Tell"