> At 08:51 PM 9/08/00 -0700, Spike wrote:
>
> >I know of no laws requiring lower classes
> >to have fewer babies.]
>
> Damien Broderick wrote: Spike, Rifkin's referring to the traditional
> eugenics platform, which *did*
> suggest laws restricting the number of kids that `stupid', `degenerate',
> `worthless' poor people might have. That was a bad, offensive approach that
> has given the whole idea of genetic improvement the stench it has today
> (well, and Hitler's borrowing of it didn't help, either).
I should have guessed the apparent silliness of the comment was
a result of curious random inclusion by the reporting medium.
But hey, I even bought one of Rifkin's books once, The End of Work.
He states many things I agree with, but our outlooks on these
statements are opposite. For instance, many Rifkinites will
state that people will soon be able to genetically engineer our
offspring. Rifkin et.al. merely state the fact with an unstated:
"oh, the horror." I come away with an unstated: kewallll.
> > out depends more on the genes with
> > which they are born rather than on
> > the schools they attend.
>
> Ah, this explains why they send their kids to Eton, eh? Then again, I
> suppose intelligence per se has never been a big consideration in Tory
> schooling.
Define please, Tory? Is that what we would call a Democrat? Please
excuse my ignorance. We are getting better tho. The internet is much
better at delivering international news than American television and
newspapers. Ive notices a lot of the news delivered by my ISP is
from the BBC. spike
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:35:43 MDT