Epigenetics won’t be the savior of those who yearn for a less rational world. It’s interesting. It will be studied. And it will complement what we already know from studying mendelian genetics, molecular biology, biochemistry, and population biology.
1 Like
Eugenics was incredibly irrational, as it sought to define races and to make sure the “lesser” races did not reproduce, yeah?
I also take umbrage with your assumption that me being critical of scientists and their motives equates to me wishing for a less rational world.
5 Likes
Did you write this “Nursing Clio” paper?
Is this why you are so invested in defending the paper as written?
All I am saying is that it smears a good deal of real science-- including science that might actually prove ideological useful to your arguments, if you weren’t so hell bent on connecting it to research activities conducted before world war ii.
No, I did not.
I disagree. I think it highlights the very real problems with eugenics, which is no longer a scientific field of study that has much public or scientific support.
I will once again say that eugenics is not the same thing as a general study of DNA and genetics, none of which I’m arguing against, nor is the article, I’d say. It is a disproven field that deals with genetics (at a time when we did not understand DNA as well as we did now), but on the basis of race, a made up social category. A field is not solely defined by some pure science, but by how it’s used and the culture that surrounds it.
But I’d also stress that your rush to defend the field shows a distinct lack of care about the history of the field, and what it actually meant in the world. Not all of it was evil, to be sure, but the field of eugenics wasn’t discredited because people became less rational or more averse to science, but because they took the real world impact of eugenics as a field of study into account and decided that it had serious problems as it was practiced. The inability to understand that is just as dangerous as ignoring science itself.
I’m invested in defending it, because I think history matters and that we can’t do anything useful in the world without a firm grounding in history (as much as science).
7 Likes
That is very much at the core of the problems I see with contemporary US reproductive ethics. Identity politics have achieved some gains over the past few decades, but they buy into the prevailing currents of individualism, and make life a living hell for those who don’t. All politics by necessity starts with reproduction, family structure, and education. So in a somewhat liberal US culture people can accept a small amount of collectivism - such as a kitchens and shelters for the disadvantaged, welfare pay and insurance, etc. But with the same basic societal framework of individualism within a capitalist culture. Just slightly more enlightened to some externalities, which is certainly a good thing.
But if socialism starts with the home, reproduction, and the family (and it does) then provisions need to exist for those who elect to have and raise children collectively. So this means reproductive choices - and gametes - which are not necessarily limited to two people. As well as not necessarily based upon the sentimentality and attachments of individualism and the kinds of interpersonal relationships which tend to result from it.
The false dichotomy being played out here is that human relationships are EITHER completely individualistic, OR subordinated by an imposed totalitarian schema. I think that most people here really know better than that. But whereas egalitarianism is something they are ready to consider for their political activism, maker space, or community garden - they are still hostile to the ethos when it involves the fundamentals of social interaction. Which is why, I would argue, that people’s attempts to put such ethos into practice meets with limited success in the culture at large.
The difference between individual reproductive agency (some progress) and collective reproductive agency (practically nonexistent) is why this is of concern to me. Perhaps it is a failing of mine to not dance around making alternate terms for things, but I expect then people would instead complain that I had “just made it up”. People’s attachment/aversion to words has always impressed me as a dubious substitute for critical thinking. I don’t believe that there are “bad words”, everything depends upon context, and we establish the context through discussion. I am not invested in either using or not using a word independently of context in the discussion. But that is probably my annoying autistic literalness showing itself. People often speak of this consensus or context as having been somehow implicitly decided by others already, rather than something we explicitly and actively negotiate with each other through the conversation. I am skeptical of that, but that’s probably my problem.
I’m not averse to eugenics for no reason, though. I’m averse to it because it was a scientifically tinged ideology that denied people that fundamental human right which you’re advocating for. This isn’t about consensus, but about historical realities.
14 Likes
Yes, and I have to say, @popobawa4u is that I think you’re conflating all studies of genetics with eugenics,and I don’t think it’s the same. There are no more departments of eugenics for a reason.
14 Likes
Perhaps it’s a generational thing. Many involved rushed to disassociate themselves when the Nazi T4 program came to light, and pursued other interests, retired, or died.
But in the 1950s, various papers (Watson and Crick among them) established the nature and structure of DNA, so researchers and PhD students flocked to the new field. And the focus of interest became – “how does this mechanism work?”. Focusing on eugenics would have meant basing ones “scientific” career on a foundation of shifting sand.
Maybe I’m too optimistic. The Tuskegee experiment continued until 1972, when someone finally blew the whistle.
It’s called a sperm bank and surrogate. We call them designer babies.
1 Like
I’m still not sure what exactly you are trying to say. And I hope you can see I am sincerely trying to understand the point you are making and not just write you off.
At times it sounds like you are saying old modes of thought are holding back individuals choice to control their own DNA and that of their immediate descendants.
And then at other times it sounds like you are saying the outmoded thought is the idea that individual have any choice. That the “group” should make all choices about who must have a baby and who must never have a baby.
Some of what you are saying sounds more about relationships than about Eugenics. For what it’s worth I was in a polyamorous relationship for 17 years. We lived together. Raised the children together. Did house work together. Slept in a giant bed together. Made all the decisions together. So to some extent I get non-typical collectivist relationships. But I still haven’t grokked exactly what type of world you are trying to paint.
Is it one in which the individuals control who when and how they breed or is it one in which the group decides who breed and who doesn’t?
Some of the verbiage you used here reminds me of, I think, your post in the lounge topic on relationships. What happens in the lounge stays in the lounge. So I will just say I feel like the point you are trying to ultimately make here may really be about wanting acceptance for how you see all of this dating, mating, commitments, messy human stuff.
Or maybe you are just trolling us. I don’t know. I try and listen with an open mind. But I am still not sure what you are saying exactly since you are not burdened with the meaning of words. ¯_(ツ)_/¯
6 Likes
I explicitly said several times that I think that presents a false dichotomy. That’s why I drew parallels to controversies for/against communism. A popular reaction in discussion is to universalize the concept rather than accept that the cultural context will depend upon indices of time, place, and participants. So we get, for example, panicked reactions such as “Communism sounds good, but I can’t do it until everybody else does, because I am a member of a capitalist society!” or “You can’t eschew private property, because some of us are heavily invested in it!” It is a naive - but apparently tempting - oversimplification to say that a system for individualism or collectivism is or should be socially all-encompassing.
Relationship is another massively-loaded term. YES, everything is about relationships. But it is a common mistake to assume, or even demand, that these relationships are somehow naturally inter-personal in nature.
THAT would be a personal problem. What I am pointing out is an inconsistency in the fundamental underpinnings of leftist identity politics. Which is that forced individualism and selfishness are distinctly liberal notions, and not necessarily applicable to collectivists. People can date, mate with, and be committed to a movement, cause, organization, etc rather than subscribe to personal romantic attachments - and that that’s OK. Saying that “it’s about popobawa” once again tries to squeeze all of this to fit within the framework of individualism, which would necessarily distort the view being presented.
My guess is that people in the US so readily default to the deeply conditioned scheme of romantic love → nuclear family that they don’t really notice how hostile things are made if you live communally, or try establishing a village as having legal custody of a child. People treat is as attack on them and ignorance of a right/duty to live as white Euro capitalist people. It is more difficult than simply being gay or queer or trans* because those don’t require much re-thinking of the fundamental cultural/organizational model.
Being taught that everything comes down to “the individual” versus an all-encompassing “State” is what perpetuates this. Refusal to consider and accept people’s abilities to form voluntary collectives can and does make problems. Fighting against state oppression can be progressive, but fighting against personal attachments and selfishness can be progressive also. That societal structure is the just as much the egalitarian bottom-up desire and ability to form meaningful collectives - rather than something to be allowed or have imposed by non-participants.
Sorry I missed that. Fair enough. Your vision is some sort of blend of personal and group choices. What happens when there is a conflict between the individual and the group?
[Deleted really long essay explaining my 20 plus history with several alternative communities since you will just wave your hands and say I am just to brainwashed to see the truth]
I think when you open your utopian community and people from most countries read in the brochure that the management reserves the right to chose who you do or do not make babies with, that they may just grab some cookies and skip the cool aid. But I wish you the best. Send me a post card saying you were right once you break ground.
4 Likes
They are just gonna nope from the headache of trying to figure out what it says in the first place.
6 Likes
The elevator pitch could use some work.
6 Likes
Nuance? A political system even willing to discus a eugenics program no matter how “subtle” is devoid of any basic humanity.
The idea that there can be any morality in ‘limited’ state control of human sexuality is absurd. This is what led to Canada conducting often fatal medical experiments on indigenous children for the general social good. Medicine Unbundled
Evil, no matter how much collateral good it provides, remains unjustified.
5 Likes
You will get no argument from me there, I am anti-state/imperialism. That’s why I specified voluntary collectives. I am an indigenous Canadian, as it so happens.
Anything that people say shouldn’t even be discussed tends to be something they are in some way blind to, in my experience. Otherwise, why would confronting it be a problem?
1 Like
Yes, but worse are examples of redefining history (alt-fact, post truth) like Senator Lynn Beyak’s current and repeated stance that Canada’s version of government mandated genocide did some good. Senator Lynn Beyak’s Residential Schools Stance Is Still Free Speech
3 Likes
It struck me that we do have voluntary matchmaking: Mensa members have a dating pool.
As a former Mensan, I wouldn’t want to date anyone in Mensa.
8 Likes
OH! I like that turn of phrase! Very apt here, I think.
2 Likes
