PDA

View Full Version : Eugenics: Green Arrow vs. Cthulhu



Green Arrow
10-24-2014, 11:23 PM
Cthulhu, let's begin. First, I'll establish the definition of eugenics.

Eugenics is a social philosophy advocating the improvement of the genetic "pool" of humanity. At its foundation, eugenics improves the gene pool simply by encouraging those with good genes to reproduce, and discouraging those with bad genes from reproducing. There have been many different eugenic methods over the course of the philosophy's existence, the most extreme example being the twisted and corrupted ideal of eugenics used by the Nazis, which completely forgoes the concept of improving the human gene pool and instead seeks to completely eliminate non-Aryan races. It is a bastardization of eugenics and will not come into this discussion.

Cthulhu, the opening statement is yours.

Cthulhu
10-25-2014, 01:31 AM
Okay. We know what eugenics is by your definition. My question is this:

Those who will be involved in its practice - the Jane and Joe population at large, will they have freedom of choice as to whether they participate in its implementation or is it a state based mandate with no individual choice in the matter?

...also, am I the pro eugenics or the anti eugenics party?

Green Arrow
10-25-2014, 01:45 AM
Okay. We know what eugenics is by your definition. My question is this:

Those who will be involved in its practice - the Jane and Joe population at large, will they have freedom of choice as to whether they participate in its implementation or is it a state based mandate with no individual choice in the matter?

If I were in charge, yes, they would. In the past, there have been proponents of eugenics that were proponents of state-mandated eugenics, however.


...also, am I the pro eugenics or the anti eugenics party?

You are whatever you wish to be. I'm arguing in favor, though.

Cthulhu
10-25-2014, 02:00 AM
If I were in charge, yes, they would. In the past, there have been proponents of eugenics that were proponents of state-mandated eugenics, however.



You are whatever you wish to be. I'm arguing in favor, though.

I'll go anti then, for opposition's sake.

The reason I am going anti eugenics is because it is typically instituted by a government, a collectivist beast that only nominally cares about the wants and needs of the people it siphons resources from.

In America (other countries as well I believe), eugenics has been done without consent by those who were deemed 'unfit' and they were sterilized at youth or at another point in time. However the practice was done away with, the time period I don't remember though.

In the opening definition:



At its foundation, eugenics improves the gene pool simply by encouraging those with good genes to reproduce, and discouraging those with bad genes from reproducing.

This is based upon the free will model because of the key word "discouraging", implying there is free will to disregard it. Government typically doesn't respond well to rebellion of its mandates, often with violence. I bring up government because I know of no other instance in which eugenics is institutionalized en masse to a population.

That aside, the goal is to improve humanity with superior genes no? What is the determining factor for that which is superior versus the inferior stock? Also, what is the mechanism for discouraging 'inferior' genes to spread?

Green Arrow
10-25-2014, 02:07 AM
I think the definition of "inferior" and "superior" in this case is pretty objective. If I am an Einstein-level genius, and you are mentally retarded, is there really a question of which of us has superior genes? At least, where intelligence is concerned. Now, it might get a little murkier if I'm a genius and you're mentally retarded, but I carry a hereditary disease like gout or Huntington's Chorea. In that case, I have the superior mental genes, but inferior physical genes.

*EDIT* Not sure what you mean by the second question.

Cthulhu
10-25-2014, 02:30 AM
I think the definition of "inferior" and "superior" in this case is pretty objective.

Not so. It is utterly geographically and technologically based with regards to the society, with social factors as well. Fitness of genes can rapidly change over the course of a single generation - without genetic drift taking place.



If I am an Einstein-level genius, and you are mentally retarded, is there really a question of which of us has superior genes?

On this point I agree. Intellect is a good thing to have. But intellect is only useful at certain times. Likewise with speed and muscle mass. Utterly contingent on the pressure at hand. If I'm being chased by a tiger, I don't care how smart I am, I care how fast I am. If I am cramming for say...chemistry finals. I could live in an iron lung for all I care. Superiority is based upon the pressure at hand. Which can change from one moment to the next. That being said, trends typically follow a pattern.


At least, where intelligence is concerned. Now, it might get a little murkier if I'm a genius and you're mentally retarded, but I carry a hereditary disease like gout or Huntington's Chorea. In that case, I have the superior mental genes, but inferior physical genes.

Good point you bring up. However it also hinges upon the pressure at hand. Sickle cell anemia. Doesn't really do anybody any favors here in the good old U S of A. But in Africa it is a mutation which render malaria a moot point to those that have the trait. Not a boon here where we have technology to make up the difference of a lagging immune system, but in Africa where technology is spotty at best in certain regions, a single mosquito bite can spell doom upon you if you don't have that trait, and your whole tribe as well.

One man's priceless is another man's worthless. Which is why a rubric of what is superior must be codified for eugenics to be get off the ground. There is no point in reaching to perfection with selective breeding if we haven't agreed on what is superior and what is inferior.



*EDIT* Not sure what you mean by the second question.

Clarification on this:


Also, what is the mechanism for discouraging 'inferior' genes to spread?

Say X gene has been identified to produce what is deemed a negative trait. And certain people have it. How will you discourage them from spreading it? Abortions, or abortions pending genetic profile of fetus? Sterilizations(because what is the point of birth control if you have been deemed to have bad genes)? Economic incentive? Euthanize violators offspring...or the violators themselves?

Green Arrow
10-25-2014, 08:19 PM
Not so. It is utterly geographically and technologically based with regards to the society, with social factors as well. Fitness of genes can rapidly change over the course of a single generation - without genetic drift taking place.

I'm going to guess that by "geographically and technologically based," you mean in the sense you eluded to in your next response:


On this point I agree. Intellect is a good thing to have. But intellect is only useful at certain times. Likewise with speed and muscle mass. Utterly contingent on the pressure at hand. If I'm being chased by a tiger, I don't care how smart I am, I care how fast I am. If I am cramming for say...chemistry finals. I could live in an iron lung for all I care. Superiority is based upon the pressure at hand. Which can change from one moment to the next. That being said, trends typically follow a pattern.

If I'm correct, it's a point I agree with. That said, it doesn't really change what I said. Speed is a valuable trait regardless of where you live. Speed benefits me just as much in the city as it would in the country, or in the wilds of Africa. If I live in the city, speed can help me get out of danger, such as from mugging. If I'm in the country, say my father has an accident involving farming equipment. If I had the speed of Usain Bolt, I could get help for him far quicker than if I did not have the speed.

So, while you are correct that superiority can depend entirely on the situation at hand, those genes ARE still superior to their alternative. Intelligence is superior to retardation, speed is superior to sloth, muscles are superior to weakness.


Good point you bring up. However it also hinges upon the pressure at hand. Sickle cell anemia. Doesn't really do anybody any favors here in the good old U S of A. But in Africa it is a mutation which render malaria a moot point to those that have the trait. Not a boon here where we have technology to make up the difference of a lagging immune system, but in Africa where technology is spotty at best in certain regions, a single mosquito bite can spell doom upon you if you don't have that trait, and your whole tribe as well.

One man's priceless is another man's worthless. Which is why a rubric of what is superior must be codified for eugenics to be get off the ground. There is no point in reaching to perfection with selective breeding if we haven't agreed on what is superior and what is inferior.

So you codify superior and inferior genes based on their regional superiority. Africa would have a different code than North America, North America would have a code different than South America, Asia different from Europe, etc.


Say X gene has been identified to produce what is deemed a negative trait. And certain people have it. How will you discourage them from spreading it? Abortions, or abortions pending genetic profile of fetus? Sterilizations(because what is the point of birth control if you have been deemed to have bad genes)? Economic incentive? Euthanize violators offspring...or the violators themselves?

The means are really limitless. Abortion and sterilization should be voluntary, in my opinion. Economic incentive puts the choice firmly in the hands of the individual with the negative traits. I do not favor murdering (and murder is what you're talking about when you say "euthanize," in this context) violators or their offspring. However, in a society that is progressing ever forward into genetic success, the violators would become an increasing minority. They would eventually end up mating amongst themselves and cancel themselves out of the gene pool anyway.

Cthulhu
10-26-2014, 01:14 AM
I'm going to guess that by "geographically and technologically based," you mean in the sense you eluded to in your next response:

Correct. I figured I would provide a basic example.



If I'm correct, it's a point I agree with. That said, it doesn't really change what I said. Speed is a valuable trait regardless of where you live. Speed benefits me just as much in the city as it would in the country, or in the wilds of Africa. If I live in the city, speed can help me get out of danger, such as from mugging. If I'm in the country, say my father has an accident involving farming equipment. If I had the speed of Usain Bolt, I could get help for him far quicker than if I did not have the speed.

That is correct. But let's be honest hear. We all have cell phones. What is the point of running to go get help when I can call 911 and have the cavalry arrive in short order while I assist on scene waiting for their arrival? In the country that might not be the most feasible option due to lack of supporting infrastructure but in urban areas where the bulk of the population is there isn't an existing pressure to develop the strong muscles, speed and reflexes. So even those with great genes don't develop their talents for the purpose of selective breeding. All eugenics does is allow for superior potential, not guaranteeing superior performance. Codename Section has raw gifted physical prowess, however to get to the level he is at requires daily, and arduous training. If he lived the normal routine of america, he'd be just as capable as the average wombat.



So, while you are correct that superiority can depend entirely on the situation at hand, those genes ARE still superior to their alternative. Intelligence is superior to retardation, speed is superior to sloth, muscles are superior to weakness.

True. But again, unless there is pressure to use the potential, it will not be reached. I used to remember all of the phone numbers that I used before I got a cell phone. A simple exercise in memory. I used to plot the most efficient courses for my travels and remember areas I needed to go.

The modern day cell phone has supplanted much of my brain power. I might have a magnificent brain and never know it - because I don't push it to achieve all that it can do.



So you codify superior and inferior genes based on their regional superiority. Africa would have a different code than North America, North America would have a code different than South America, Asia different from Europe, etc.

Immigration. How will you deal with transitory populations? Taking just america for instance. Say you identified and designated the 'superior' gene set for america. Would not other people from the rest of the world do nothing but upset the delicate balance you are trying to achieve in the first place? America is a popular destination that many in the world dream of ending up in. How would you address the influx of those who want to come here, raise a family (spread their genes), and live the american dream?

These are the seeds of racial nationalism. "Can't have that _______ be disturbing the gene pool with their toxic stock", when in reality they could be of perfect stock - but for a different location. However if they breed with a native they have upset the entire gene pool for generations.

As to your next statement:



The means are really limitless. Abortion and sterilization should be voluntary, in my opinion. Economic incentive puts the choice firmly in the hands of the individual with the negative traits. I do not favor murdering (and murder is what you're talking about when you say "euthanize," in this context) violators or their offspring. However, in a society that is progressing ever forward into genetic success, the violators would become an increasing minority. They would eventually end up mating amongst themselves and cancel themselves out of the gene pool anyway.

The means are limitless I agree. However if they are derived of consent and outside of control, the plan of eugenics is doomed to failure without coercion of some kind to assist it along the way. Perhaps the incentive model could work, although I doubt it. For the main reason that most men want to raise their own children, women too. Biological rejection is a real phenomenon which few can fully overcome. Unless you completely overhaul what people think of as a family and can rewire the instincts of people and offspring successfully, you have a mountain to tackle.

Is it possible? Sure, but I only see it being viable under force where violation is punished in some way or another. The other problem is that people are emotional creatures. The heart wants what the heart wants. Even if X has a terrible genetic profile, he makes breakfast just the way you like it, is good with kids, has goals and dreams and blah blah blah...

People make emotional decisions all the time, marriage and children being one of them. Other factors being the promiscuity of the current society makes it difficult. Odds are accidental pregnancies from one night stands aren't the run of the mill olympian or particle physicist. But rather the dregs of society. From real world experience, I have only noticed that morons typically reproduce more often that our brighter minds. These are the same people that smoke, drink, and do drugs of their own free will(not brilliant life decisions, so why would they be more wise with their reproduction?). I highly doubt they will go away regardless of any incentive to control their numbers short of a rifle butt to the base of the skull. Low caliber life forms seem to be inevitably more numerous that higher caliber life forms.

Green Arrow
10-26-2014, 11:37 PM
That is correct. But let's be honest hear. We all have cell phones. What is the point of running to go get help when I can call 911 and have the cavalry arrive in short order while I assist on scene waiting for their arrival? In the country that might not be the most feasible option due to lack of supporting infrastructure but in urban areas where the bulk of the population is there isn't an existing pressure to develop the strong muscles, speed and reflexes. So even those with great genes don't develop their talents for the purpose of selective breeding. All eugenics does is allow for superior potential, not guaranteeing superior performance. Codename Section has raw gifted physical prowess, however to get to the level he is at requires daily, and arduous training. If he lived the normal routine of america, he'd be just as capable as the average wombat.

True. But again, unless there is pressure to use the potential, it will not be reached. I used to remember all of the phone numbers that I used before I got a cell phone. A simple exercise in memory. I used to plot the most efficient courses for my travels and remember areas I needed to go.


The modern day cell phone has supplanted much of my brain power. I might have a magnificent brain and never know it - because I don't push it to achieve all that it can do.

I concede that point to you.


Immigration. How will you deal with transitory populations? Taking just america for instance. Say you identified and designated the 'superior' gene set for america. Would not other people from the rest of the world do nothing but upset the delicate balance you are trying to achieve in the first place? America is a popular destination that many in the world dream of ending up in. How would you address the influx of those who want to come here, raise a family (spread their genes), and live the american dream?

These are the seeds of racial nationalism. "Can't have that _______ be disturbing the gene pool with their toxic stock", when in reality they could be of perfect stock - but for a different location. However if they breed with a native they have upset the entire gene pool for generations.

That's simple enough, at least, as simple as political ideas can be. Controlled immigration. Something that we should implement even without eugenics being the ultimate end game. But that's a whole 'nother debate :tongue:


The means are limitless I agree. However if they are derived of consent and outside of control, the plan of eugenics is doomed to failure without coercion of some kind to assist it along the way. Perhaps the incentive model could work, although I doubt it. For the main reason that most men want to raise their own children, women too. Biological rejection is a real phenomenon which few can fully overcome. Unless you completely overhaul what people think of as a family and can rewire the instincts of people and offspring successfully, you have a mountain to tackle.

Is it possible? Sure, but I only see it being viable under force where violation is punished in some way or another. The other problem is that people are emotional creatures. The heart wants what the heart wants. Even if X has a terrible genetic profile, he makes breakfast just the way you like it, is good with kids, has goals and dreams and blah blah blah...

People make emotional decisions all the time, marriage and children being one of them. Other factors being the promiscuity of the current society makes it difficult. Odds are accidental pregnancies from one night stands aren't the run of the mill olympian or particle physicist. But rather the dregs of society. From real world experience, I have only noticed that morons typically reproduce more often that our brighter minds. These are the same people that smoke, drink, and do drugs of their own free will(not brilliant life decisions, so why would they be more wise with their reproduction?). I highly doubt they will go away regardless of any incentive to control their numbers short of a rifle butt to the base of the skull. Low caliber life forms seem to be inevitably more numerous that higher caliber life forms.

Forgoing for a moment the question of whether or not it's possible to implement to perfection, here's the question: is it (or would it be, if it were possible to implement perfectly) ethically sound?

Cthulhu
10-29-2014, 12:09 AM
I concede that point to you.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrhe9KO8Z1Y



That's simple enough, at least, as simple as political ideas can be. Controlled immigration. Something that we should implement even without eugenics being the ultimate end game. But that's a whole 'nother debate :tongue:

True enough. Easy concept and plan. Nightmare to implement for a host of reasons. The Fairness Fairies would cannibalize whoever tried it.



Forgoing for a moment the question of whether or not it's possible to implement to perfection, here's the question: is it (or would it be, if it were possible to implement perfectly) ethically sound?

First thing is first. Definitions. What is the definition of ethics we're using to base this off of? Because not everybody has the same ethical inclinations.

Also is it optional or not? Because if not, then hell no good sir, grab your torch and pitchfork.

Peter1469
11-01-2014, 06:01 PM
Notice: moved to open debate.

Chris
11-01-2014, 06:11 PM
I think Cthulhu's question end of post #4 Won the debate: "That aside, the goal is to improve humanity with superior genes no? What is the determining factor for that which is superior versus the inferior stock?"

We just don't know this, not scientifically, not at all.

Pretending we do, and trying to design humans, is pretty darned scary.

Green Arrow
11-01-2014, 06:24 PM
True enough. Easy concept and plan. Nightmare to implement for a host of reasons. The Fairness Fairies would cannibalize whoever tried it.

Easy solution there, too: ignore them.


First thing is first. Definitions. What is the definition of ethics we're using to base this off of? Because not everybody has the same ethical inclinations.

Start here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics).


Also is it optional or not? Because if not, then hell no good sir, grab your torch and pitchfork.

Why is that relevant? It's not like anyone is actually being hurt by forced sterilization/abortion. So you can't ever have kids. You're still alive and well.

Alternatively, we could just relocate genetic violators and their offspring to one of the islands, like Madagascar. A sort of genetic quarantine.

Cthulhu
11-01-2014, 06:54 PM
Easy solution there, too: ignore them.

It could only work in a military dictatorship then. Ignored a voting base long enough tends to not work so well in a democracy or a republic.




Start here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics).


Not gonna lie. This doesn't help. Maybe I'm just dense.



Why is that relevant? It's not like anyone is actually being hurt by forced sterilization/abortion. So you can't ever have kids. You're still alive and well.


What endows someone with the authority to tell another that he or she is not inferior and thus not worthy to breed?

Besides this would condemn senior citizens in some countries to death by eliminating a future support system I'm their old age - their offspring.

Then there is the whole free will aspect and such...



Alternatively, we could just relocate genetic violators and their offspring to one of the islands, like Madagascar. A sort of genetic quarantine.

So how is this different from racial nationalism? Every region would have its "superior" set of genes. This would result in isolationism as far as gene flow is concerned.


Sent from my evil cell phone.

Green Arrow
11-01-2014, 09:23 PM
It could only work in a military dictatorship then. Ignored a voting base long enough tends to not work so well in a democracy or a republic.

With our current electoral climate, they'd have to wait 2-8 years to get their people in a majority, and by then, we'd be on the path to accomplishment and wouldn't have to care anymore.


Not gonna lie. This doesn't help. Maybe I'm just dense.

Morally right or good.


What endows someone with the authority to tell another that he or she is not inferior and thus not worthy to breed?

Besides this would condemn senior citizens in some countries to death by eliminating a future support system I'm their old age - their offspring.

Then there is the whole free will aspect and such...

Not really. People can still adopt already existing children. Our orphanages and foster care systems are full of children without good homes.


So how is this different from racial nationalism? Every region would have its "superior" set of genes. This would result in isolationism as far as gene flow is concerned.

It would take some scientific investigation before it could be implemented, but we could allow some cross-pollination if we identify candidates from other regions who have good genes that we would like in our own gene pool, and vice versa.

donttread
11-03-2014, 07:56 AM
One way we circumvent natural selection in this country is by unduly protecting stupid people with warning labels for example. Subway plastic bags actually say "do not allow babies and small children to play with this bag" No shit! Who could possibly be old enough to be in charge of a child and NOT know that? And if they did what chance does their child have anyway? Or the expensive warnings on metal ladders about how they can be fallen from and conduct electricity

PolWatch
11-03-2014, 08:06 AM
There are some people who should never have children...for the sake of the children as well as society. Even knowing that, I just can't see interference in this issue except to make the options to childbearing available. I knew someone who believed that everyone should be sterilized at birth...and could have it reversed upon proof of (emotional, financial, etc) ability to rear children. I thought he was a nut... sometimes I wonder...but I still can't support it.

Thanks for an interesting debate on a controversial subject.

gee, no screaming or cussing or snarking...very enjoyable! :wink:

Polecat
11-03-2014, 10:15 AM
There are some people who should never have children...for the sake of the children as well as society. Even knowing that, I just can't see interference in this issue except to make the options to childbearing available. I knew someone who believed that everyone should be sterilized at birth...and could have it reversed upon proof of (emotional, financial, etc) ability to rear children. I thought he was a nut... sometimes I wonder...but I still can't support it.

Thanks for an interesting debate on a controversial subject.

gee, no screaming or cussing or snarking...very enjoyable! :wink:

While this approach would have most apparent advantages in the production of "trash" people being reduced the underlying issue of "who" gets to set the criteria would make it impossible to enact outside of a tyrannical dictatorship.

Cthulhu
11-06-2014, 11:39 AM
With our current electoral climate, they'd have to wait 2-8 years to get their people in a majority, and by then, we'd be on the path to accomplishment and wouldn't have to care anymore.

Sure they would. The USA has a lot of guns in it.

[/quote]
Morally right or good.[/quote]

Subjective values are not a good rubric to base this on.




Not really. People can still adopt already existing children. Our orphanages and foster care systems are full of children without good homes.


Most people prefer to have their own biological children, hence we still have overcrowded foster systems.



It would take some scientific investigation before it could be implemented, but we could allow some cross-pollination if we identify candidates from other regions who have good genes that we would like in our own gene pool, and vice versa.

Conceded on this point.

southwest88
11-28-2014, 08:55 PM
@Cthulhu (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=872), let's begin. First, I'll establish the definition of eugenics.

Eugenics is a social philosophy advocating the improvement of the genetic "pool" of humanity. At its foundation, eugenics improves the gene pool simply by encouraging those with good genes to reproduce, and discouraging those with bad genes from reproducing. There have been many different eugenic methods over the course of the philosophy's existence, the most extreme example being the twisted and corrupted ideal of eugenics used by the Nazis, which completely forgoes the concept of improving the human gene pool and instead seeks to completely eliminate non-Aryan races. It is a $#@!ization of eugenics and will not come into this discussion.

Cthulhu, the opening statement is yours.

(My bold)

Well, except that the Nazis took their notions of eugenics from the US & from the Brits. See

War against the weak: eugenics and America's campaign to create a master race /


by Black, Edwin. (http://66.18.170.52/ipac20/ipac.jsp?session=12A313LD85437.12004&profile=amo&uri=search=PZAUTH~!Black,%20Edwin.&ri=4&aspect=basic_search&menu=search&source=~!horizon)





New York : Four Walls Eight Windows, c2003.


Subjects
 Eugenics -- United States -- History. (http://66.18.170.52/ipac20/ipac.jsp?session=12A313LD85437.12004&profile=amo&uri=search=PSUBJ~!Eugenics%20--%20United%20States%20--%20History.&term=Eugenics%20--%20United%20States%20--%20History.&aspect=basic_search&menu=search&source=~!horizon)



 Sterilization (Birth control) -- United States. (http://66.18.170.52/ipac20/ipac.jsp?session=12A313LD85437.12004&profile=amo&uri=search=PSUBJ~!Sterilization%20(Birth%20control )%20--%20United%20States.&term=Sterilization%20(Birth%20control)%20--%20United%20States.&aspect=basic_search&menu=search&source=~!horizon)



 Human reproduction -- Government policy -- United States. (http://66.18.170.52/ipac20/ipac.jsp?session=12A313LD85437.12004&profile=amo&uri=search=PSUBJ~!Human%20reproduction%20--%20Government%20policy%20--%20United%20States.&term=Human%20reproduction%20--%20Government%20policy%20--%20United%20States.&aspect=basic_search&menu=search&source=~!horizon)



 United States -- Social policy. (http://66.18.170.52/ipac20/ipac.jsp?session=12A313LD85437.12004&profile=amo&uri=search=PSUBJ~!United%20States%20--%20Social%20policy.&term=United%20States%20--%20Social%20policy.&aspect=basic_search&menu=search&source=~!horizon)



 United States -- Moral conditions. (http://66.18.170.52/ipac20/ipac.jsp?session=12A313LD85437.12004&profile=amo&uri=search=PSUBJ~!United%20States%20--%20Moral%20conditions.&term=United%20States%20--%20Moral%20conditions.&aspect=basic_search&menu=search&source=~!horizon)






Description:


xxviii, 550 p., [14] p. of plates : ill. ; 24 cm.

The US had been in the forefront of eugenics for a time, to the extent that sympathizers & proponents gained control of the IN state prison & sterilized inmates without any consent or notice, nor any controlling legislation from the IN Lege (which was nearly overrun with KKK@ the time - perhaps a partial explanation). But eugenics was strong in the NE too, the South - where families with histories of sloth, criminality, mental defectives, poverty, inconvenience (this was the '20s, remember) were also sterilized. The official eugenics orgs & organs were elated @ their success in Germany, so much so that they became concerned that the US/UK were falling behind.

& so it goes. Excellent reading, but not for the faint of heart.

Green Arrow
11-28-2014, 08:57 PM
(My bold)

Well, except that the Nazis took their notions of eugenics from the US & from the Brits. See

War against the weak: eugenics and America's campaign to create a master race /


by Black, Edwin. (http://66.18.170.52/ipac20/ipac.jsp?session=12A313LD85437.12004&profile=amo&uri=search=PZAUTH~!Black,%20Edwin.&ri=4&aspect=basic_search&menu=search&source=~!horizon)





New York : Four Walls Eight Windows, c2003.


Subjects
 Eugenics -- United States -- History. (http://66.18.170.52/ipac20/ipac.jsp?session=12A313LD85437.12004&profile=amo&uri=search=PSUBJ~!Eugenics%20--%20United%20States%20--%20History.&term=Eugenics%20--%20United%20States%20--%20History.&aspect=basic_search&menu=search&source=~!horizon)



 Sterilization (Birth control) -- United States. (http://66.18.170.52/ipac20/ipac.jsp?session=12A313LD85437.12004&profile=amo&uri=search=PSUBJ~!Sterilization%20(Birth%20control )%20--%20United%20States.&term=Sterilization%20(Birth%20control)%20--%20United%20States.&aspect=basic_search&menu=search&source=~!horizon)



 Human reproduction -- Government policy -- United States. (http://66.18.170.52/ipac20/ipac.jsp?session=12A313LD85437.12004&profile=amo&uri=search=PSUBJ~!Human%20reproduction%20--%20Government%20policy%20--%20United%20States.&term=Human%20reproduction%20--%20Government%20policy%20--%20United%20States.&aspect=basic_search&menu=search&source=~!horizon)



 United States -- Social policy. (http://66.18.170.52/ipac20/ipac.jsp?session=12A313LD85437.12004&profile=amo&uri=search=PSUBJ~!United%20States%20--%20Social%20policy.&term=United%20States%20--%20Social%20policy.&aspect=basic_search&menu=search&source=~!horizon)



 United States -- Moral conditions. (http://66.18.170.52/ipac20/ipac.jsp?session=12A313LD85437.12004&profile=amo&uri=search=PSUBJ~!United%20States%20--%20Moral%20conditions.&term=United%20States%20--%20Moral%20conditions.&aspect=basic_search&menu=search&source=~!horizon)






Description:


xxviii, 550 p., [14] p. of plates : ill. ; 24 cm.

The US had been in the forefront of eugenics for a time, to the extent that sympathizers & proponents gained control of the IN state prison & sterilized inmates without any consent or notice, nor any controlling legislation from the IN Lege (which was nearly overrun with KKK@ the time - perhaps a partial explanation). But eugenics was strong in the NE too, the South - where families with histories of sloth, criminality, mental defectives, poverty, inconvenience (this was the '20s, remember) were also sterilized. The official eugenics orgs & organs were elated @ their success in Germany, so much so that they became concerned that the US/UK were falling behind.

& so it goes. Excellent reading, but not for the faint of heart.










Sterilization is not what I was referring to with the twisted approach of the Nazis.

southwest88
11-29-2014, 12:01 PM
Sterilization is not what I was referring to with the twisted approach of the Nazis.

(My bold)

Hmm. It's been too long - I'll have to track down the book & see what it had to say about the Nazis taking negative eugenics to the logical extreme.

southwest88
12-19-2014, 12:24 PM
(My bold)

Hmm. It's been too long - I'll have to track down the book & see what it had to say about the Nazis taking negative eugenics to the logical extreme.

Nope, nothing direct. Closing the line.