You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

David_Gerard comments on [LINK] Why I'm not on the Rationalist Masterlist - Less Wrong Discussion

21 Post author: Apprentice 06 January 2014 12:16AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (866)

Comments (866)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: David_Gerard 06 January 2014 03:55:56PM 2 points [-]

The targets may not be convinced by this argument.

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 06 January 2014 03:59:09PM 2 points [-]

It's probable that we need a range of words to cover different sorts of efforts at eliminating ethnicities and genetic sub-groups.

Comment author: satt 06 January 2014 07:08:32PM *  2 points [-]

From p. 119 of William H. Tucker's The Cattell Controversy: Race, Science, and Ideology:

Instead of the term genocide, which he wanted to reserve only for "a literal killing off" of all the members of a group, Cattell proposed the neologism genthanasia, for the more sensitive process of "phasing out" a "moribund culture...by educational and birth control measures, without a single member dying before his time."

Comment author: Randy_M 06 January 2014 08:17:03PM *  1 point [-]

Ethnic cleansing seems appropriate.

edit: That is, the term seems appropriate.

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 06 January 2014 09:22:20PM 2 points [-]

"Ethnic cleansing" usually implies causing people to leave an area.

Comment author: Randy_M 06 January 2014 10:34:58PM 0 points [-]

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.

Comment author: blacktrance 06 January 2014 04:40:54PM 0 points [-]

Arguably, we already do - genocide for the first one, and eugenics for the second one.

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 06 January 2014 04:53:47PM 4 points [-]

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.

Comment author: blacktrance 07 January 2014 12:30:04AM 2 points [-]

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.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit