= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
drethelin comments on [LINK] Why I'm not on the Rationalist Masterlist - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (866)
yeah I had this exact problem happen over twitter. "I like eugenics" "You're a monster!" "What? It's not like I advocate genocide to achieve it!" "Eugenics means advocating genocide!"
Eugenics may well be slow genocide. I have no faith that it would be equitably distributed.
Ok, the problem here is that the thread got derailed disputing the definition of genocide when the relevant question is "should we do X".
If it doesn't involve killing, it can't be genocide.
The targets may not be convinced by this argument.
It's probable that we need a range of words to cover different sorts of efforts at eliminating ethnicities and genetic sub-groups.
From p. 119 of William H. Tucker's The Cattell Controversy: Race, Science, and Ideology:
Ethnic cleansing seems appropriate.
edit: That is, the term seems appropriate.
"Ethnic cleansing" usually implies causing people to leave an area.
Well, it's a move in the direction away from the murderous connotations held by genocide. And taken literally it is pretty descriptive of the goals of eugenics.
Arguably, we already do - genocide for the first one, and eugenics for the second one.
The problem is that "eugenics" doesn't distinguish between positive and negative eugenics, nor does it imply anything about consent. The latter is serous, not just because consent matters, but because there's been a history of involuntary and frequently covert sterilization of low status women.
I've heard the high level of incarceration of black men in the US called genocide because it takes those men out of the mating pool. It seems like overblown language to me, but the premise doesn't seem totally implausible.
Personally, I tend to not use the term "eugenics" unless someone asks me if I support it, in which case I tell them that I only support it when it's voluntary. This usually works well.
Relatedly, it's interesting to note that some people object to eugenics even when it's clear from context that there is consent, such as when some pro-choice people oppose abortion of fetuses with Downs or other defects.
Not true according to many standard definitions of genocide. You should especially read carefully Raphael Lemkin's original definition.
So, aliens come down and sterilize every single dutch-speaking person on earth (also, Flemish and Afrikaans), as well as anybody who has a dutch-speaking immediate relative - genocide, or not?
It depends on what you're trying to get at with the word "genocide". It's targeted elimination of a group, but not by mass murder. Does that qualify as a genocide? That's like asking if a tree makes a sound if it falls in a forest and no one hears it.