
Eugenics never went away - YeGoblynQueenne
https://aeon.co/essays/eugenics-today-where-eugenic-sterilisation-continues-now
======
abnry
No mention of abortion in this article. Particularly relevant because Iceland
has no kids with down syndrome because of it, and European countries are
following their pattern.

~~~
thraway180306
[https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/iceland-eliminated-
syndrom...](https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/iceland-eliminated-syndrome-
abortion/)

~~~
6_45
This is completely irrelevant. This article gives a rating on f "mixed" to the
claim that abortions have eliminated nated or reduced downs syndrome, and
their only refutation is that abortion is not mandated. They say nothing about
the general concept of eliminating a genetic illness with selective breeding
(effectively) because selective breeding will always have profound effects on
genetic traits. This is the very basis of evolution itself and without
acknowledging it's validity, you deny evolution as a whole. Please don't post
irrelevant links that seem to support a refutation of the topic at hand while
actually it has nothing to do with it.

------
l5870uoo9y
> According to UN statistics from 2006, in India 37 per cent of women have
> undergone sexual sterilisation.

If India's population in 2006 were approximately 1100 mill, then India had 550
mill women of whom 200 mill were sterilised. Are there some important
information missing here? Were it only lower caste women which if I remember
correctly constitute around 10 percent of the total population? 37 percent
sounds high.

~~~
John_KZ
Perhaps since there was a grand available ($10-$20/person, as the article
says) the numbers were significantly skewed. At 20$/person this totals
$4,000M.

Although this doesn't mean sterilizations didn't happen, I'd be very
interested to read more about this, preferably from a better source. If it
happened, I've never heard of it and neither did many people I know, meaning
it probably didn't get the kind of publicity this kind of Nazi-tier mass-
sterilization programme should have gotten.

------
mikece
While I don't have a problem with eugenics as a purely philosophical thought
exercise, actually implementing it is another question. It's pure hubris to
think we understand humans -- at the physical, psychological, or spiritual
level -- enough to know what constitutes superiority. It's further hubris to
think that removing "inferior" humans will improve the overall state of
humanity. If you haven't already, read _A Brave New World_ because it works as
a thought experiment of intentionally constraining the number of elite humans
and artificially breeding massive numbers of lessor/inferior humans for the
tasks beneath the interest and dignity of the Alpha Class. One of the side
stories in that book is that the Alpha Class rules tried an experiment where
an island was populated with only Alphas and they very rapidly descended into
civil war because, each recognizing their ability and superiority, nobody
wanted to work for anyone else.

A moral problem that can flow from eugenics as a thought exercise is
considering certain groups of humans as less-than, inferior, or not worth
consuming our resources. Once you accept that possibility it's only a matter
of time before someone promotes or enacts policy to rid the world of the
lessors. See the lessons learned from Nazi Germany or the Armenian Purge at
the hands of the Young Turks, the wholesale genocide of the Celts by the
Romans, etc. We either value human beings and human life or we start defining
who needs to die.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
What with automation and all, we will not require the Epsilon semi-morons. SO
the bulk of humanity will not be required I guess. That was not forseen when
the book was written.

As for 'eliminating' people, that's scare talk. We work today to improve
people, but in most countries are not actively eliminating people. E.g. how is
eugenics different from education and inoculation? Do we execute the un-
inoculated?

------
quantumofmalice
Eugenics has a bad name, but it is scientifically valid. We now know that
genetics play a huge role in life outcomes (e.g. adult IQ appears to be 70-80%
heritable) and, for better or for worse, the eugenicists were right, even if
their methods were morally wrong.

We don't focus enough on positive eugenics: getting smart, non-violent and
conscientious people to have large families. Right now we do the opposite:
smart folks feel all sorts of pressures to have a small or no family due to
careers, the expense of elite schooling, the environment, etc. The opening
scene of Idiocracy nailed it.

It is reasonable to look at soft negative eugenics, such as offering free,
voluntary sterilization for reduction of prison sentences for violent crimes,
but getting smart folks to have more kids is far more important.

~~~
thraway180306
The methods weren't "just" morally wrong but a bunch of hokum rationalized as
science.

Just like yours.

Heritability does not mean heredity. Even taste is heritable. Results of the
GWAS crowd are so bad that Plomin recently truned to praising his levels of
signal for being _not worse_ than social sciences. This is astounding from
someone previously selling behavioral genetics as a rigorous science up there
with actual genetics.

Don't even get me started on IQ
[https://liorpachter.wordpress.com/2018/06/04/low-iq-
scores-p...](https://liorpachter.wordpress.com/2018/06/04/low-iq-scores-
predict-excellence-in-data-science/)

~~~
threatofrain
But IQ performance likely predicts success in data science, and not only that,
it does predict success in a variety of subjects. I'm also with the post on
the bottom -- I don't think Lior believes in his post. I interpret this as
humble-bragging. There's enough silliness in this post that permits the author
to wiggle away; I'm sure the author already agrees that it's unfair to pick
two highly prejudicial examples, or reduce causal modelling down to Occam's
razor.

Or perhaps it's a jab at subtle misconceptions on causal learning and
empiricism. Either way it's not meant to be taken seriously at face value.

But do get started on IQ.

~~~
thraway180306
_I don 't think Lior believes in his post_

You may even think he didn't in fact wrote it. Just before you redefine what
it means to think, don't tell anyone.

