-----Original Message-----
From: hibbert@netcom.com <hibbert@netcom.com>
To: extropians@extropy.org <extropians@extropy.org>
Cc: hibbert@netcom.com <hibbert@netcom.com>
Date: 22 August 2001 18:22
Subject: the term "eugenics"
>
>Lee Corbin, Emlyn, Robert Bradbury and others have been talking in a
>relatively calm tone about "eugenics" recently. I just want to point out
>that while it may be possible for some people to use this term calmly, it's
>an extremely loaded term when used in public. It's loaded enough that it
>would really be a good idea to find a better word.
>
>While there are people who object to the idea of selective breeding of
>people (which is the same idea as, but a completely different slant than
>some people deciding not to have children with certain genetic
>characteristics), the real strike against the term is that the Nazis used
>it to mean the selective killing of people the government didn't like. At
>this point, there's no way to disassociate the term from that meaning.
It wasnt just that meaning - it was also used to describe the policy of
forcibly sterilising people deemed to be "unfit" - this was advocated by
eugenics groups all over the world and was enforced in many places (eg
Sweden, many States in the US. It very nearly became national policy in the
UK as well. So it isn't just the association with Nazism that's the problem.
BTW support for eugenics was regarded as highly "progressive/advanced" until
WW II. Steve Davies.
>
>Chris
>---
>Chris Hibbert It is easy to turn an aquarium into fish soup, but
>hibbert@netcom.com not so easy to turn fish soup back into an aquarium.
> -- Lech Walesa on reverting to a market economy.
>
>http://discuss.foresight.org/~hibbert/home.html
>Yahoo Instant Message: ag_cth
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:12 MDT