So Neo's [still lost in the ] Matrix asks 'What's wrong w Eugenics'- Humm
Eugenics, Social Darwinism, and the Social Theory of the Natural Selection of Humans: [@ http://blogs.britannica.com... ]: } Charles Darwin’s theory of natural selection and concept of the “struggle for existence,” presented in his On the Origin of Species in 1859, captivated the minds of biologists. But Darwin’s ideas also played to the dangerously receptive imaginations of certain members of Victorian society...
- Darwin's cousin Francis Galton, who by the 1860s was an established explorer and anthropologist, found the question of natural selection in humans an irresistible topic of study. So too did British philosopher Herbert Spencer [an agnostic secular 'humanist' who asserted science always 'trumps' religion {= scientism], who coined the phrase “survival of the fittest” just five years after Darwin’s publication.
- Galton introduced his own controversial idea—the theory of eugenics—in 1883. At the time, Galton was probably thinking simply in terms of science, using his theory to describe selective breeding in humans as a means to improve the fitness of the human race. However, when his theory was united with Spencer’s socially inclined concept of survival, the result was Social Darwinism, a gripping theory about competition for survival among human races and social classes.
- Those who viewed themselves as superior, usually members of the upper classes of society, found that they could rely upon the theories put forth by Galton and Spencer to justify their discrimination against the lower classes.
- But while Social Darwinism and eugenics flourished in popularity in the late 19th century, there was little evidence that solidified eugenics as anything more than a preferred theory of the elite. Support for the fundamental principles of eugenics relied on demonstrating that certain disadvantageous traits, such as disease and lack of intelligence, were inherited and that selecting against these traits would benefit society...
- Between 1900 and 1930 in the United States [& UK, too], support for eugenics continued to grow. The fallacy of selective breeding in humans was only realized when the wealthy were suddenly poor, and the reality of genocide had demonstrated the extreme end of eugenics—in other words, with the shock of the Great Depression and the rise of Adolf Hitler in N@zi Germany, which ushered in the Holocaust. But the dissolution of eugenics in the United States was a slow process, because racial discrimination persisted. Involuntary sterilization laws, enacted in the early 1900s, were finally repealed in 1979.
- The lasting impacts of the deceit and flawed science associated with eugenics have been tremendous. The claims made by eugenicists were erroneous exaggerations drawn from Darwin’s work that ultimately endorsed racism and blatant acts of discrimination. Furthermore, because eugenics was so deeply intertwined with genetics, it is a constant companion among the hurdles associated with the advancement of genetic testing and gene therapy.... {
-
-
From History.com @ www.history.com/topics/earl... } Social Darwinism is a set of ideologies that emerged in the late 1800s in which Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection was used to justify certain political, social, or economic views. Social Darwinists believe in “survival of the fittest”—the idea that certain people become powerful in society because they are innately better. Social Darwinism has been used to justify imperialism, racism, eugenics and social inequality at various times over the past century and a half.
- In conveying his scientific ideas to the British public, Darwin 'applied' popular concepts, including “survival of the fittest,” from sociologist Herbert Spencer and “struggle for existence” from economist Thomas Malthus [father of Malthusianism], who had earlier written about how human societies evolve over time [FYI Malthus thought the 'poor' should be allowed to just starve to death, because per Malthus there would no-longer be enough food to feed them].
- For those who followed Spencer and Malthus, Darwin’s theory appeared to confirm with 'science' what they already believed to be true about human society—that the fit inherited qualities such as industriousness and the ability to accumulate wealth, while the unfit were innately lazy and stupid [& thus 'poor']...
- [agnostic secular {in}'humanist'] Herbert Spencer opposed any laws that helped workers, the poor, and those he deemed genetically weak. Such laws, he argued, would go against the evolution of civilization by delaying the extinction of the “unfit.” - Another prominent Social Darwinist was American economist William Graham Sumner. He too, was an early opponent of the welfare state. He viewed individual competition for property and social status as a tool to eliminate the 'weak' and immoral of the population.
- British scholar Sir Francis Galton (a cousin of Darwin) launched a new “science” aimed at improving the human race by ridding society of its “undesirables.” He called it eugenics. - Galton proposed to better humankind by propagating the British elite. He argued that social institutions such as welfare and mental asylums allowed inferior humans to survive and reproduce at higher levels than their superior counterparts in Britain’s wealthy class.
- Galton’s ideas became popular in America where the concepts of eugenics quickly gained strength. - Eugenics became a popular social movement in the United States that peaked in the 1920s and 1930s. Books and films promoted eugenics... - US proponents of the eugenics movement reasoned the best way to eliminate undesirable traits from the population was by preventing those deemed “unfit” from having children. - Thus During the first part of the twentieth century, 32 U.S. states passed laws that resulted in the forced sterilization of more than 64,000 Americans including immigrants, people of color, unmarried mothers and the mentally ill [FYI: the last of such forced-sterilization laws remained on the books till 1979 -also note PPFA founding 'mother' Margaret Sanger was an unrepentant eugenicist].
- Adolf Hitler, one of the world’s most notorious eugenicists, drew inspiration from California’s forced sterilizations of the “feeble-minded” in designing N@zi Germany’s racially based policies. - Hitler began reading about eugenics and social Darwinism while he was imprisoned following a failed 1924 coup attempt known as the Beer Hall Putsch.
- Hitler adopted the social Darwinist take on 'survival of the fittest'. He believed the German master race had grown weak due to the influence of non-Aryans in Germany. To Hitler, survival of the German “Aryan” race depended on its ability to maintain the purity of its gene pool. Thus Hitler's N@zis targeted certain groups or races that they considered biologically inferior for extermination. These included Jews, Roma (gypsies), Poles, Soviets, people with disabilities and homosexuals [ironically Hitler was likely a 'gay'-guy himself, it's known many of his top N@zis indeed were].
- Thus with the end of World War II, social Darwinist and eugenic theories had ['officially' 'publicly'] fallen out of favor in the United States and much of Europe—mainly due to their links to the notorious N@zi extermination programs and supporting propaganda, and because these theories were scientifically unfounded... {
- - So {pseudo}'intellectuals' flirted w & even out-right advocated & pushed for Social Darwinism / Malthusianism / Eugenics for damn near a century & a half [From Malthus circa 1800 to Hitler in WWII], but it took the N@zi Holocaust in WWII for 'secular {in}'humanists' to finally come to grips w just how truly DANGEROUSLY Reckless the pseudo-science ideology of Eugenics / Social Darwinism really was / is!!
I mean Dude, you've really got to be lost in the Matrix to even ask w a straight-face, what's wrong w such a DANGEROUS Ideology as Eugenics = Social-Darwinism has proven to be!!
Nixak*77* Nixak*77* 20 days ago
The only states that Dim Billary HRC sycophants like Josh Fox can even claim Jill Stein 'cost' Billary the WH in 2016, is in Mich, Wis & Penn St. Those were the 3 key states, other states didn't really 'count' that much in the grand scheme of things. Also note that Billary HRC would have to have won ALL 3 of these states to have become POTUS in 2016. Well, by the numbers the only state of those 3 that Fox can say for sure Ms Stein may have cost Billary is Mich, where Billary lost by less than 11K votes & Ms Stein got over 51K votes. In Penn St guys like Fox would have to assume nearly ALL [94%] of Ms Stein's votes would have gone Billary's way, & in Wis nearly 3/4s [72%] of Stein's votes would have to have gone to Billary HRC.
- IMO it's more likely that 10% - 15% of Ms Stein's votes would have gone to maybe Gary Johnson & another 1/4 - 1/3 of her voters would most likely have chosen 'none of the above' or wrote in 'Bernie' rather than vote for Billary HRC [IMO a lot of pissed off Sandernistas voted for Stein vs Billary & many of them would have picked N/A or wrote in 'Bernie' vs voting for Billary, had Ms Stein not run]. Thus Billary may have at best got 2/3s of Ms Stein's votes & possibly just barely 1/2 of them. Working from that scenario the only state of the 3 key states Billary needed to win in 2016, would have been Mich- IE: she'd still likely lost to Repug Trump in Wis & Penn St even if the GP's Jill Stein had not run, & thus would have still lost the 2016 POTUS race to Trump anyway [Josh are you listening].
-
-
And Dharna.N made the point that the 'progressive' Dems got the idea for the 'Green New Deal' from the Green Party as that was a key plank in Jill Stein's 2016 POTUS platform [in-fact IMO Stein first talked of it back in 2012]. So riddle me this Josh- Do you really think pro Wall St Bankster candidate Billary HRC would have championed a 'Green New Deal', &/or Medicare for All, &/or Free College Tuition for even 2yr [let alone 4 yr] public colleges, &/or big cut-backs in or even complete waiving of college loan debt, had she become POTUS in 2016?? The answer is- NO!!>
Nixak*77* Joyce Bergen a month ago
IMO Luuk.V's smack-down of Apollonius as a 'real' 'model / prototype' for Yeshua of the Gospels, was particularly on-point, & truly impeaches 'Jesus Mythicist' Rich Carrier's hype on that score.
- Luuk's smack-down of 'Ole Joe Smith's' Book of Mormon was good too, but IMO one didn't even need Luuk's rebuttal to know Joe Smith's 'tales' re the Book of Mormon is dubious at-best [IMO basically bogus], & thus ain't in the same league as the Bible [nor IMO is it even comparable to the Koran either].
IMO Shermer nefariously, disingenuously & deliberately picked Muhammed Atta to take a cheap-shot swipe at Islam & the Prophet Muhammed, & also to say 'true believers' / 'Folks of Faith' die [& kill] for all kinds of 'causes' -Except- Shermer's is a clever yet FALSE analogy! Yeshua's original Apostles are NOT comparable to M.Atta alleged 'deadly devotion' to OBL & Al-CIAeda, because Yeshua did NOT order his followers to go out & kill anyone! In fact when the Sanhedrin came on Passover night to arrest & persecute Yeshua in a midnight kangaroo court, & Apostle Simeon b.Yonah [aka 'Peter'] drew a sword, Yeshua told him to put it away. Thus Yeshua's & His followers' 'martyrdom' did not involve killing people, even those who actively persecuted Him / them, even to the death. Yet Shermer disingenuously conflates being willing to die for a cause w being willing to KILL for a cause [even killing those not responsible &/or when unprovoked]!!
Nixak*77* TylerB a month ago
Your whole shtick is a bunch of 'maybe', 'perhaps', 'possibly', 'IF' I coulda, woulda, shoulda...' = 'Duplicitous Double-Speak' as(s) is wont w you.
- Per your WTF {non}'reasoning', the Gospel writers 'really' wrote about a Greek pagan guy called Apollonius born in Cappadocia, yet somehow called him Yeshua instead & said he was born in Judea / Israel-Palestine as a Judean Rabbi- Humm... Then per your WTF {non}'reasoning' the Gospel writers all said Yeshua [who per you is really Apollonius] was executed upon orders of the Roman imperial governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate, by crucifixion in Jerusalem at age 33 during the Feast of Passover circa 30 ACE -EXCEPT- Apollonius was not even executed, let alone crucified & died at a ripe old age of 85 in Anatolia circa 100 ACE.
Uhm Dude, you're not really that damn 'obtuse' are you??! Or 'maybe' you really are- LOL!!
Nixak*77* TylerB a month ago
Dude, Apollonius was born about 20 yrs AFTER Yeshua was born, his bio was written about 125 - 135 yrs AFTER his death [circa 100 ACE] & fully 150 yrs or more AFTER the Gospels were written. 'So Riddle Me This Joker': HTF could any of the Gospels be based on Apollonius' bio that was NOT even written till some +150 YRS AFTER the Gospels themselves were written??! Huhh- DUHH!!
Your guy Carrier's whole 'Jesus Mythicism' shtick is just Bogus BS!!
The Gospels describe people, places & events in Judea, NOT Greece or Cappadocia [= Apollonius' home-turf]- Duhh!!
- The Gospels were written in Greek [FYI the original version of G.Matt most likely was first written in Hebrew / Aramaic]... And...? So What! The OT was translated in Greek [see Septuagint] circa 250 BCE & subsequently was widely circulated & studied in Judea. In fact the Greek Septuagint was the main version of the OT scholars had to study till the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947. Furthermore if your were half as clever as(s) you fancy yourself, you'd know that Greek & Latin was used quite often in Judea during Yeshua's time along w Hebrew / Aramaic- Duhh!!
- Josephus wrote about Yeshua, His Brother Ya'akov, & Yokhanon the Baptist in Greek. Josephus said jack about Apollonus even tho he wrote his works circa 94 ACE while Apollonius was still living, & Josephus even died the same yr as Apollonus [100 ACE]. Thus your Greek assertion means JACK / is just Whacked!!
Nixak*77* Matthew Taylor a month ago
Look-up the NIH 2014 scientific study on NDE cases @ www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/ar...
Excerpts: } Near-death experiences (NDEs) are reported by about 17% of those who nearly die. NDEs have been reported by children, adults, scientists, physicians, priests, ministers, among the religious and [even] atheists, and from countries throughout the world. - While no two NDEs are the same, there are characteristic features that are commonly observed in NDEs. These characteristics include a perception of seeing and hearing apart from the physical body, passing into or through a tunnel, encountering a mystical light, intense and generally positive emotions, a review of part or all of their prior life experiences, encountering deceased loved ones, and a choice to return to their earthly life.
- In 1998, a website called the Near Death Experience Research Foundation (NDERF, nderf.org) was established to conduct NDE research and to be a public service... Portions of the NDERF website, including the NDE questionnaire, have been posted in over 20 different languages... This prominence of the NDERF website provided a unique opportunity to conduct a large-scale study of NDEs, including NDEs from around the world. At the current time there are over 3,700 NDEs posted on the NDERF website, which is by far the largest collection of publicly accessible NDE accounts in the world.
Line of Evidence #1: Lucid, organized experiences while unconscious, comatose, or clinically dead
- Line of Evidence #2: Seeing ongoing events from a location apart from the physical body while unconscious (out-of-body experience)
- Line of Evidence #3: Near-death experiences with vision in the blind and supernormal vision
- Line of Evidence #4: Near-death experiences that occur while under general anesthesia
- Line of Evidence #5: Near-death experiences and life reviews
- Line of Evidence #6: Encountering deceased loved ones in near-death experiences [including at-times one's relative whom the person did NOT know at the time was even dead]
- Line of Evidence #7: Near-death experiences of young children
- Line of Evidence #8: Cross-cultural study of near-death experiences
- Line of Evidence #9: Near-death experience after effects
Thus multiple lines of evidence point to the conclusion that near-death experiences are medically inexplicable and cannot be explained by known physical brain function. Many of the preceding lines of evidence would be remarkable if they were reported by a group of individuals during conscious experiences. However, NDErs are generally unconscious or clinically dead at the time of their experiences and should not have any lucid organized memories from their time of unconsciousness...
- The great majority of more than 1,000 near-death experiencers believed that their experiences were definitely real. The 1,122 NDErs surveyed included many physicians, scientists, attorneys, and nurses. These findings suggest that, for the majority of us who have not personally experienced an NDE, we should be very cautious about labelling NDEs as “unreal.” Given that such a high percentage of NDErs consider their experiences to be “definitely real,” it would be reasonable to accept their assessment of the reality of their personal experience unless there is good evidence that their experiences were not real.
- After over 35 years of scholarly investigation of near-death experience, the totality of what is observed in NDEs has not been adequately explained based on physical brain function... {
