That’s not the connotation, that’s the history. While not all people who believed in eugenics wished to sterilize people, the vast majority of public programs aimed at “racial hygiene” in fact DID forcibly sterilize people. Please read some history books.


People seem to carefully cherry-pick their history and terms in order to frame this a certain way. In addition to the few prominent bad examples such as the Kallikak and Nazi programs, there is the much greater history of the entirety of agriculture - without which pretty much everybody would starve. That’s the practice of the growers selecting for eu genos, except that people are careful not to refer to it as such.

The institutional abuses have indeed been terrible, but that can be said of any technology being used for oppression rather than democratically.

When people have children, the genes are going to come from somewhere. The popular insistence that the only two options are complete random accident OR state-planned genocide strikes me as cynical and terribly unrealistic. That seems like a discussion deliberately devoid of any nuance.

You’re equating human beings to plants and you think she’s cherry-picking examples?


Apples and oranges. [quote=“popobawa4u, post:82, topic:98838”]
that can be said of any technology being used for oppression rather than democratically.

How precisely is a program of racial hygiene to be implemented “democratically”? This isn’t about an individual making choices about making families, it’s about the “race” being purified (however that term is defined, by skin color, ethnicity or humanity as a whole). [quote=“popobawa4u, post:82, topic:98838”]
the genes are going to come from somewhere.

And that’s not eugenics. Eugenics was the science of racial hygiene, and you can’t use it interchangeably with evolution, agricultural splicing, genetics in general, or people having children… for that matter, even people going in for genetic testing to screen for various diseases before making the decision to have children. Eugenics wasn’t always used for what we’d consider evil purposes, but if you read the article I posted above, you’d see the “science” still begs for too many tricky questions, such as who gets to decide what traits are “desirable”? Do we breed out people with downs syndrome?


Through semantics, apparently. I pointed out earlier that people appeared unwilling to separate the term and practice of reproduction from its institutional baggage - or to propose a clearer term. Doesn’t most everybody advocate reproducing more with those who have desirable traits, and less with those who have undesirable traits? How is that even controversial? The only difference is who makes the decision as to what traits are desirable.

Again - suggesting that I would agree if only I had read/understood the right thing. Yes, I read the article. Who gets to decide is not a scientific question, but a political one. Like any technology, it is racist when used by racists, and isn’t when it isn’t. What I am trying to point out, and people seem averse to, is that racism, classism, oppression, genocide, etc are not essential to the practice of breeding or reproduction. Its institutional basis is as reactionary or progressive as we make of it.

When people reproduce, the genes are being “decided” somehow anyway, so it might be more responsible to be involved in that process. Just like we don’t leave architecture, driving, or organizations to random chance.

1 Like

No. I seriously doubt most people sit around thinking of “desirable” traits in their children. I’m sure their decision making process is far more prosaic - they love the person they are with and want to raise a family with them. [quote=“popobawa4u, post:85, topic:98838”]
What I am trying to point out, and people seem averse to, is that racism, classism, oppression, genocide, etc are not essential to the practice of breeding or reproduction

But that’s not what eugenics is… eugenics is racial hygiene. That’s what it is, what it means, and how it was practice. Not all genetics are eugenics, because they aren’t’ based on assumptions of race.


Again, you do understand why it’s problematic to dictate who can and cannot have children and with whom, right? Dictating people’s sexual partners is, at the absolute least, insensitive, especially in the context of a discussion about rape.

Or maybe you don’t understand it.


Please read the link @Mindysan33 provided and educate yourself on the history and science of human eugenics. When you make statements like that, it comes off stunningly ignorant, and I promise you that eugenics is a topic on which ignorance is not bliss.

It has been tried and studies in literally dozens of countries, both after Francis Galton coined the term and prior to that under the guise of domesticating certain races.


But it is funny how the supporters of eugenics always seem to be absolutely certain they won’t be the target of it.


Everybody practices eugenics, every time they decide who to reproduce with. It is often a naive form, based upon conscious or subconscious evaluations of traits, rather than actual genetic analysis. People’s complaints about eugenics are almost always predicated upon state control of reproduction, rather than family control, and assume institutional oppression from the outset. There is a lot of baggage here, and for understandable reasons. But it is not any more difficult to have equitably optimised human offspring than it is for horses or tomatoes.

Like with any other endeavors in life, optimums and ideals depend upon the values and goals of the people doing it.

Eugenics for the common person can be fine. But not state-imposed, as tomxvesely proposed, since that would be abused.

1 Like

No, that’s called natural selection. Eugenics is when OTHER people forcibly sterilize you.


That’s the connotation people seem to read into it, but this isn’t anything implicit to the term. All it really means is selecting for traits rather than mating by random chance. If 100 of us volunteer to have our genes combined to yield a certain kind of offspring, then that is still eugenic. No institutional abuse, societal classism or racism necessary.

1 Like

And faggot means a flamin’ piece of wood. But that’s not how the word is used and understood. Semantics, I know. Eugenics the term refers to state-sponsored sterilization - it is used to describe selective breeding applied to a human population rather than cattle.

ps: there’s nothing truly random about human mating patterns


Eh. The whole premise of Gattaca involved voluntary eugenics.


Why would he do that? I’m clearly a libtard and a WOMAN, for pete’s sake! Not like I could possibly be as smart as him!


This comment got lost in the move.


radiolab," the new normal" podcast 40minutes in…experiment on taming aggression in foxes, every generation the aggressive ones were culled, 10 generations thereof…non agressive foxes…yes do it globally,…

You do understand why we don’t do this with people? Do you remember who did?


is intention not important…? the benefits huge ! just because it was used by hitler on twisted race lines thinking does not invalidate it from discussion…

1 Like

I’m not sure you understand how crime and evolution works.