Some of my best friends and favorite colleagues suggest frequently that eugenics lays just behind the surface of many contemporary movements. I’m wondering if there is a best piece that lays out this idea/history. What do you think?
-
That sounds great
Sure. What I usually want people to focus on is: what's the locus of change? if it's individuals, and not the "gene pool" or population, then it's probably not eugenics. it still might be bad. but I feel like "eugenics" ought to mean, "deliberate attempts to change populations."
-
-
If it's not deliberate, and not aiming at populations, I might say that the program "has the same effect as a eugenics program" but I'm not sure I'd necessarily call it eugenics qua eugenics. But I know not all see it this way! :-)
-
An example from my paper on sterilizations in California is a doctor who sterilized because he thought it would give therapeutic benefits to patients. Is that eugenic sterilization? I don't think so — he wasn't trying to change the gene pool.
-
Did it have effects (mass sterilizations of the poor, for example) that are equivalent to those we'd expect from a eugenic sterilization program? Definitely. Which for me is the interesting point. You can be "not a Nazi" but still get "Nazi-like" results with some policies.
-
My paper if anyone is curious! http://alexwellerstein.com/publications/wellerstein_statesofeugenics.pdf …
-
oh look Lee I found my own hot take on this questionpic.twitter.com/0H5IoVAKHG
-
note that this was clearly written by someone who had no idea that literal Nazis would be making a comeback within a decade
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.