5punk

Eugenics and You
When Charles Darwin published his groundbreaking theory of Natural Selection in 1859, it was received by the public with considerable vexation. Although the esteemed naturalist had been kind enough to explain his theory using mounds of logic and evidence, he lacked the good manners to incorporate the readers' preconceived notions of the universe. Nevertheless, many men of science were drawn to the elegant hypothesis, and they found it pregnant with intriguing corollaries. One of these was a phenomenon Darwin referred to as artificial selection: the centuries-old process of selectively breeding domestic animals to magnify desirable traits. This, he explained, was the same mechanism as natural selection, merely accelerated by human influence.



In 1865, Darwin's half-cousin Sir Francis Galton pried the lid from yet another worm-can with the publication of his article entitled "Hereditary Talent and Character." In this essay, the gentleman-scientist suggested that one could apply the principle of artificial selection to humans just as one could in domestic animals, thereby exaggerating desirable human traits over several generations. This scientific philosophy would come to be known as eugenics, and over the subsequent years its seemingly sensible insights gained approval worldwide. In an effort to curtail the genetic pollution created by "inferior" genes, some governments even enacted laws authorizing the forcible sterilization of the "insane, idiotic, imbecile, feebleminded or epileptic," as well as individuals with criminal or promiscuous inclinations. Ultimately hundreds of thousands of people were forced or coerced into sterilization worldwide, over 65,000 of them in the country which pioneered the eugenic effort: The United States of America.

Read the article on DamnInteresting.com »

Author: Alan Bellows
Category: History Your Tax Dollars at Work Medical Science The World of Tomorrow
Publish Date: Wed, 14 May 2008 21:03:16 +0000
Read more... - Read comments...

Source: Damn Interesting

see that? That's damn interesting that is.

Dr. kitteny berk wrote:see that? That's damn interesting that is.

i still don't approve of it in the slightest.

Hmm, spooky timing on the DI about eugenics turning up.

That IS damn interesting.

HereComesPete wrote:Hmm, spooky timing on the DI about eugenics turning up.

That IS damn interesting.

http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=417

Baader-Meinhof eh? The whole it's boring so you don't pay attention and them whammo it's interesting and it's what you where thinking/talking about so it seems that the world is all strange etc etc.

I wrote a paper about cognitive bias, 4k in 2 hours and I got 41%

HereComesPete wrote:Baader-Meinhof eh? The whole it's boring so you don't pay attention and them whammo it's interesting and it's what you where thinking/talking about so it seems that the world is all strange etc etc.

I wrote a paper about cognitive bias, 4k in 2 hours and I got 41%

Still a pass!

I wasn't bothered, it was in my first year. I failed two of my modules because they where about ancient greek and roman stuff. It was for 'flavour' so we got an idea of life in them times, I didn't go to any lectures and wrote about concrete in my exam, it lasted three hours, I was in and out in less than fifteen. (twss) I still moved on to my second year because they knew it was all bullshit.

The early proponents of eugenics were also distressed over the observation that the poor segments of an industrialized society tend to have more children than the well-off, an effect now known as the demographic-economic paradox. It was feared that this lopsided fertility would dilute the quality of the human gene pool, leading to the deterioration of socially valuable traits such as intelligence.

Although "poor" could perhaps be replaced with "chav scum dole scrounger criminal teenage pregnant drug taking cunts", as poor doesn't mean your DNA is shit, although there is obviously a DNA link there, the environment has a say also.

Although was this also true pre-welfare state? I don't know when "the dole" started but I suspect poor people had lots of kids before then and just sent them out to work. Perhaps worth noting but I can't think why right now.

I think it's because having lots of kids in the past meant they could be sent out to work and earn you money, as you say. Now, however, they earn you money by adding to the benefits you can claim and make it easier to get a Council house. Similar outcome for the parent, only instead of the kids learning how to work they now learn how to scrounge, drink cheap cider and steal cars.

Further evidence of the Baader-Meinhof theory in action:

Whilst playing GTA last night, I came across this place

<img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2403/251 ... 9a.jpg?v=0">
just a random building off the beaten track. I can't get inside unfortunately.