Eugenics 100th Birthday
In this Daily Standard column, David Klinghoffer, my colleague at the Discovery Institute, notes that it has been 100 years since eugenic sterilization was first legalized in the USA. He also points out that while Darwin opposed discriminating against the weak, the pernicious eugenics theory was deemed by some of his followers as merely a natural application of Darwin's theory of evolution, (or, as I might put it) from the reductionist materialistic philosophy that flowed therefrom denying the intrinsic worth of human life. Klinghoffer also warns against a new eugenics arising from the original version's ashes, which is dangerous (I would say) precisely for the same reason that the first version was so deadly. Food for thought.
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 9:20 AM
11 Comments
11 Comments:
As you like to point out, deriving moral principles from scientific facts is scientism, not science. The fact of evolution by natural selection doesn't have one thing to say about whether eugenics is good or bad.
It seems like Klinghoffer and the ID crowd at the Discovery Institute practice inverse scientism -- if science seems to support an ethical conclusion they don't like, then attack the science. Unfortunately, this makes them appear to be idiots. They can't seem to separate out their science, metaphysics, and ethics. Some scientists may have the similar problems, but at least when they are doing science they are doing something demonstrably worthwhile. The DI crowd just generates smoke and confusion.
Klinghoffer's article also makes explicit the anti-reproductive-choice agenda that I've detected here.
mtraven: First, I know no idiots at the DI. I would match their IQs with anyone's. Second, you are the one continually obsessing about "reproductive-choice," which Klinghoffer did not get into. Third, it isn't the biology of natural selection that causes the eugenics problem. It is the philosophy that some--and it need not happen, indeed should not happen--took from Darwin's scientific breakthrough. Recall social Darwinism? And eugenics was explicitly based on Darinian theory. They all arose because people took a legitimate scientific theory and tried to apply it illigitimately and sociologically to human society.
First: I watched one of the DI's anti-Darwin-Day podcasts, and read some Dembski. My opinion stands -- I've rarely seen such boneheadedness. Maybe they aren't idiots, but if not then they are in the grips of some fabulously bad ideas.
Second: Klinghoffer: Even for those unwilling to endorse such killing, there is still the alternative of the soft eugenics of reproductive "choice." ... screened for Down syndrome, with a view to killing the unborn child if the chromosomal abnormality is discovered. While we don't compel sterilization anymore, we have our own methods of eliminating those we deem unfit for life.
Third: I think we basically agree.
From wikipedia.org, under the heading "Prussian Blue (duo)" :
"Prussian Blue is a white nationalist folk teen duo formed in early 2003 by Lynx Vaughan Gaede and Lamb Lennon Gaede, fraternal twin girls born on June 30, 1992 (age 14) in Fresno, California and brought up in the United States.
...According to ABC News, the girls were homeschooled by their mother, April Gaede, an activist and writer for the white nationalist organization National Vanguard. [1] The twins' grandfather wears a swastika belt buckle, uses the Nazi symbol on his truck, and registered it as a cattle brand.[1] The twins have a younger half-sister. Her full name is Dresden Hale Harrington, who was born on July 19, 2004 (age 2).[5] Her first name is derived from the German city and her middle name is derived from self-proclaimed white supremacist Matt Hale.
During their ABC interview, the twins said they believe Adolf Hitler was a great man with good ideas, such as eugenic standards and incentives to improve the genetic quality of the German people, and marriage loans to help qualified German families begin upon a firm financial basis. In the interview, the twins described the Holocaust as being exaggerated. [6]"
Taken from mtraven's comment:
"Even for those unwilling to endorse such killing, there is still the alternative of the soft eugenics of reproductive "choice." ... screened for Down syndrome, with a view to killing the unborn child if the chromosomal abnormality is discovered. While we don't compel sterilization anymore, we have our own methods of eliminating those we deem unfit for life."
Mtraven:
I keep finding commentary about how we're anti-reproductive-choice here in your replies. (((points up))) Those guys are also pro-reproductive choice, as long as the people choosing not to reproduce are black people, or Jewish people.
You can only go so far to hang on to an obsession with the need for "choice" before we start "choosing" to stomp on the face of someone else. Know what? That duo up there named their band Prussian Blue because they explicitly stated on their website that the lack of the color Prussian Blue in the "showers" at the various concentration camps is proof that nobody was killed there - the gas used *would* have left Prussian Blue stains everywhere, and therefore the Jews lied and the Holocaust was over-played.
These are people who do now and will continue to encourage "undesirable" people to make "good choices" - ones that benefit the neo-nazi ideal.
You say, "that's not really choice," but there are an awful lot of people out there who will sweet talk you into believing it really is a choice.
Choice should mean making a decision based on the good of all, not just the individual. Instant gratification of the self is childish. Adult thinking means thinking of everyone, and sometimes making sacrifices for the good of others.
I don't see much of that in the attitude presented above, do you?
Tabs:
First off, the section you quoted was not my words but David Klinghoffer's.
Second, your invocation of Nazis I find personally offensive. There is a world of difference between being able to make choices for yourself and having them imposed on you by others. If you can't tell the difference, then there isn't much hope of having a productive discussion.
The rest of your post frankly doesn't make any sense at all to me. "You can only go so far to hang on to an obsession with the need for "choice" before we start "choosing" to stomp on the face of someone else." Huh? People have the right to choose for themselves insofar as it doesn't trample on the rights of others. That's a basic principle of our legal system. "Choice should mean making a decision based on the good of all, not just the individual", on the contrary, is not, and sounds like something Lenin or Peter Singer would say.
mtraven:
"First off, the section you quoted was not my words but David Klinghoffer's."
I should have been more explicit - I meant that I took his quote from your reply, not from the original source, hence the "Taken from," yadda yadda. Mea culpa.
Second - If the lady who started Planned Parenthood did so to stop dark-complected people from reproducing, I think that it's very important to realize that there are sick b****rds out there with sick ideas who will twist anything to suit their ideals (in this case supposedly separatist goals, but in reality White Supremicist goals).
Third:
I'm saying this a different way because I wasn't clear enough the first time and I'd like to read your argument for what I was trying (and failing) to say.
There are any number of people who don't give a damn about other races or religions. In fact, they hate people of other races and religions, to the point where they want to make those others go away, preferably by killing them. Hate makes people violent.
You keep talking about the fact that you want folks to have "reproductive choice" on this website, and you call us things like "forced-pregnancy advocates," and you tend to defend anything that goes against Wesley's bioethics. It's not a complaint, it's a simple fact. You do.
You don't have a problem with eugenics because it seems okay to you to choose what happens to an unborn baby of a certain age, since it's the womans "choice" to do whatever she wants to. That's basically it - you aren't prejudiced against anyone, you're not racist or sexist or anything like that, you just think that people should have the right to choose.
But there are an awful lot of people out there who willingly let folks like you - who are as repulsed by their attitudes as I am - take the center stage and talk about choice, not because they give a damn about a woman's reproductive choices, but because they can further their agendas and let you be the voice of reason. Meanwhile, they slip something evil into the general population.
I brought up Prussian Blue because they represent, to me, the sickness that still exists in this world. They're neo-nazis. And what did the nazis themselves do? They took the original scientific study of Darwinism - survival of the fittest - and decided that anybody who's not "fit" (blond, blue-eyed, smart, not Jewish) should be killed off, no matter the age of the person, no matter if that person was wanted, no matter what.
You have a knee-jerk reaction to things, accusing us of being anti-choice. I'm against people abusing the system. I'm not anti-choice. I think some choices are wrong for moral and ethical reasons (and in some cases religious reasons), and I practice a "love the sinner, hate the sin" way of living (I hope!) that encourages people to make good choices.
But you lump us all together in one group like we're all bad, and meanwhile you're not realizing that your "pro-choice" attitude is letting some people get away with murder (sometimes literally).
You make those of us who are pro-life (not just abortion-wise but all of us) sound like we're clueless idiots, but your no-fetters attitude is the kind of thing that got us Treblinka in the first place.
I was trying to be more politick about it, but that's what I was trying to say the first time.
If I've incorrectly lumped people with different views together, or given the impression that I think everyone is a clueless idiot, I apologize. But in fact on this topic you are being clueless, and in a rather offensive way.
Just so you know, both my parents were refugees from Nazi Europe and most of their relatives were killed in concentration camps. So I don't take kindly to being lectured on Nazism by people who apparently have no understanding of it.
You say "your no-fetters attitude is the kind of thing that got us Treblinka in the first place." That is bullshit. Treblinka was a product of thousands of years of antisemitism, toxic nationalism, authoritarianism, warfare between the nations of Europe, the Depression, and the rise of mass communication. A "no-fetters attitude" had absolutely nothing to do with it.
"Just so you know, both my parents were refugees from Nazi Europe and most of their relatives were killed in concentration camps. So I don't take kindly to being lectured on Nazism by people who apparently have no understanding of it."
My grandfather, a Rabbinical judge, left Germany shortly before Hitler was made Chancelor. He left behind his own parents and a brother. My great-uncle, who earned a Purple Heart during World War II when the pontoon bridges he was helping to build were attacked, told me in graphic detail what the survivors he met at Treblinka looked like. He wept as he described having to stand there, unable to feed these visibly starving people, because the doctors told him the shock to their systems could kill them.
"You say "your no-fetters attitude is the kind of thing that got us Treblinka in the first place." That is bullshit. Treblinka was a product of thousands of years of antisemitism, toxic nationalism, authoritarianism, warfare between the nations of Europe, the Depression, and the rise of mass communication. A "no-fetters attitude" had absolutely nothing to do with it."
I've looked through my history books and I don't recall seeing any mention of Concentration Camps during WWI. Nor was there an attempt at mass extinction.
Let me be blunt - The US and its allies effed up royally after WWI and that lead to a massive depression all over the world (we only THINK we got hit bad - we had it better than some places). Now here's German responding to a charasmatic leader who's drawing them out of their depression through military action. There was nationalism abounding, flag waving and so on and so forth.
Meanwhile, you have Hitler, a total nut-job and proof that uncles shouldn't marry their nieces, part Jewish himself and hating it, and bolstering the anti-Semitic feelings of his countrymen.
Some scientists in Germany, proponents of eugenics, see a golden opportunity. Hitler already hates anybody who doesn't fit his ideal. Eugenics got slipped in behind the "no holds barred" attitude that permeated Germany during their military expansionism. There were no fetters. Nobody stood up to say, "Hey, this is wrong," and there were no bioethicists there having long, drawn-out discussions about what's right and what's wrong. Nobody put any kind of capper on. Everything was legitimate science, whether it was or not - vivisection, experimentation on twins, everything.
I'm not anti-choice. I'm anti-THAT happening again. I don't trust scientists worth a damn because WE effin' started it! WE were the ones proposing eugenics in the first place, and we proposed quite a lot of other ideas (should prisoners be sterilized against their will to prevent them from breeding "unworthy" children into this country, etc).
I know a damn lot about Nazis - I know what I saw in the pictures my great-uncle too, and in the way he started crying, and I know my mother's silences when it comes to talking about her father's family, and I am so effin' NOT going to sit here and have you tell me I'm clueless - if you think that anybody, ANYBODY can be trusted at all times...
Then what about those bloody Catholic and Lutherin nurses who helped exterminate the Jews? What about the Pope, who turned a blind eye?
I would rather go around thinking that any blob of cells with Human DNA is a living, breathing human being than risk having ANYONE tell me that because I'm the daughter of a Jew, or because my father is Italian, or because my coloration often gets me confused for a Latin American, that I'm nothing but a kike, wop, or spic - all of which I've been called - and my life isn't worth shit.
You start dehumanizing anybody, and that's exactly what happens.
WWII was started because of the economy, and the permissiveness of the society let all that bullshit happen.
Oh, PS - the Japanese, who at the time thought that anyone who wasn't Japanese was of an inferior race, actually performed vivisectons on our soldiers who were captured; the fact was never brought up in the trial because the US agreed to let it go as long as we got all the medical records from the cuttings they did.
Fancy that.
Now wait.
"Just so you know, both my parents were refugees from Nazi Europe and most of their relatives were killed in concentration camps. So I don't take kindly to being lectured on Nazism by people who apparently have no understanding of it."
All right, I admit that I reacted from the gut there instead of thinking things through all the way, and that I shot off at the mouth (or figners as it were).
I don't regret *what* I said because it's the truth - I don't trust anybody, scientists, doctors, etc. - who aren't willing to treat everyone as human beings because of the whole "slippery slope" thing, and it's way too easy for people to take a downward spiral. I stand by all of that.
I also stand by my feelings concerning the possibility of our heading in the same direction as the Nazis - the moment you dehumanize someone, you risk carrying that to extremes. And I stand by my emotions because I know where they came from - from my family's experience, although I admit I'm third-generation, whereas you're second-generation.
So for that reason I'm not deleting the post; I won't take back what I said.
But I shouldn't have taken your words as a personal attack - you and I have different viewpoints and you have the right to defend yours. And I didn't divorce myself enough from my feelings when replying because I was angry with you at what I percieved as a slap in the face.
The fact is that both of us have family members who went through hell during that time period and both of us gleaned something from them. You're more open-minded than I am. I'm more cautious.
I'm sorry that I ranted, rather than presenting my response more logically - I still mean what I said, but I shouldn't have taken my spleen out on you in the process of saying it.
But I do want you to know that I wasn't attempting to offend you - I really DO believe that lurking in the background are some sick, horrible people who will kill others without twitching an eyebrow, and that they're going to use whatever cover they can get to keep normals from stopping them, and that means using respectable people and their ideas as a cover. That wasn't a lob against you. And I wasn't trying to make you feel like I was comparing you to the Nazis; I didn't realize you'd take it that way. So I'm sorry for that, and I'm sorry for not having a cool head when I wrote the above post.
Tabs -- it looks like we both have family connections to victims of Nazism, and we both have a tendency to shoot our mouths off. I won't take it personally if you won't.
I don't have time to reply at length now, let me just make a few points.
You seem to think that the Nazis exemplified freedom because THEY could do as they choose. This is a very strange interpretation of freedom. Yes, they had no constraints of law or decency. But nobody else in the country was free. Who thinks of Nazi Germany as a land of unfettered freedom?
Yes there will always be evil people around. It's an open question as to how best to stop them from gaining power. The Nazis were able to gain power in part because the Germans had an authoritarian culture that did not have respect for individual freedom.
The abortion issue is about who gets to make decisions about reproduction -- the individual or the state. "Eugenics" means two very different things depending on whether it is the state imposing its will on people or people making choices for themselves.
mtraven:
"Tabs -- it looks like we both have family connections to victims of Nazism, and we both have a tendency to shoot our mouths off. I won't take it personally if you won't."
I won't. You'd think by now I'd stop acting like a fifteen-year-old when I get around sensitive subjects.
"You seem to think that the Nazis exemplified freedom because THEY could do as they choose. This is a very strange interpretation of freedom."
Freedom of the few is my biggest fear. The whole, "Some animals are more equal than others" thing scares me - you let one group have unlimited freedom to do what they want and others be forced to endure. That's why I'm more concerned about regulating science than I am about, say, gun control or tobacco use.
"Yes there will always be evil people around. It's an open question as to how best to stop them from gaining power. The Nazis were able to gain power in part because the Germans had an authoritarian culture that did not have respect for individual freedom."
I know. What I'm concerned about is when someone stops being an "individual." If a segment of the population is determiend to be sub-human, then they can be treated any way. I'm all for saying everybody's an individual and letting them have the freedom to life and no pain. I don't think it's anymore fair that someone who is considered PVS be dehydrated than it is that shootists like myself be deprived of our guns, or forced to register them.
I feel like Vern to your RJ - "I'm naturally tentative."
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home