Talk:Eugenics/Archive 3

Technical language

Near the end of the article I found this: "which states that a population's genetics are defined as pp+2pq+qq at equilibrium" and was completely baffled by its meaning. Could someone please clarify or remove it and replace it with a better phrase? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.238.13.53 (talk) 01:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The expression generalises the state of equilibrium between a dominant and a recessive allele with frequencies p and q in a population modelled by the Hardy-Weinberg principle. It is not helpful to introduce this mathematical expression without defining its terms. The aim of eugenics is to change rather than prolong such an equilibrium.Cuddlyable3 (talk) 06:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not eugenics

I am not sure that the elimination of the phenotype of a recessive trait (via prenatal screening and abortion, for instance) should be called eugenics. It's a leap of faith to believe that the prevalence of the recessive gene is reduced by elimination of the phenotype. The prevalance of a recessive trait relative to the prevalance of its expression is not a fixed value. It can be impacted by increased in-breeding, increased out-breeding, some reproductive advantage imparted by the recessive gene, and probably some other stuff I don't know about.

Without proof, it may not be eugenics.

Not being eugenics would depend upon defining eugenics strictly as a method that would necessarily sweep away the genes of the undesired traits. But the term has (always, I think) been used more broadly, concerning not only improving/"purifying" the genetic pool of a population, but also avoiding "bad societal impacts" of certain phenotypes, which is the actual goal of the whole thing. So even abortion in cases where it would be known that the development was the only thing that "went wrong" at some moment, would still be eugenics, because would be better for the society to get rid of someone physically or mentally impaired, even if this person had good genes behind it. The same parents could have more children later, without the costs of raising an impaired person. --Extremophile 15:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Infanticide

Is is just me or does this page shut down as soon as it loads for everyone else too? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanticide

Works for me.

Dune

the Bene Gesserit eugenics program is central to the plot of Frank Herbert's Dune Universe. It is a great if not, quintessential example of eugenics in fiction, yet there is no mention of it. The series is quite popular also.

Brave New World also depicts eugenics, as did the movie "Gattica", etc. I generally cringe when I see them, but many articles have a section devoted to depictions of their subject in popular media. -Willmcw 16:18, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

FYI; "GattAca" - it's meant to be a short DNA sequence. Aaadddaaammm 02:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Sailer quote

I support its removal, I find it so nettlesomely unsupportable as to be distracting from the article. Wyss 13:16, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Some have noted....

• Some have noted that the taboo against eugenics after World War II is an example of the association fallacy; e.g. "Eugenics must be wrong because it was associated with the Nazis." [1]

Who are these "some"? Can we get specific? Thanks, -Willmcw 20:50, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

See [2]. Dsh34 23:24, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

That link is on logical fallacies, not eugenics or Nazism. Using it as a source makes no more sense than using it as a source for the Nazis' views of conservationism. If this is a legitimate view, rather than a rhetorical example, we should be able to find a better source. -Willmcw 00:16, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

How does the fact that it is about logical fallacies somehow invalidate it? Would you rather I consult Nazi texts for arguments that the taboo against eugenics is a logical fallacy? While it may not make sense to use a page on logical fallacies to research Nazi views, that's not what we're doing. We're researching logical fallacies. And it doesn't matter if it's a legitimate view or not. Because what the article says is that X says that it's a legitimate view, and that's indisputable. By the way, I'd like to see some sources for the criticisms of eugenics in this article. Dsh34 00:59, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I've re-written the section to reflect what is actually being asserted:

• One website on logic has used the statement "Eugenics must be wrong because it was associated with the Nazis" as an example of the association fallacy. [3]

I hope that's acceptable. Cheers, -Willmcw 03:17, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Clean-up - birth control

At the bottom of the section "What is eugenics?" is:

"During the twentieth century, many countries enacted various eugenics policies and programs, including: ...Birth control..."

"Birth control" is imprecise (the use of birth control is not necessarily motivated by eugenic policies), and should be qualified or eliminated.

    Back in the beginning of the twentieth century it was motivated solely by eugenic policies.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.71.103.70 (talk) 05:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC) 

"Birth control" is indeed vague and only justifiable by the qualifier various. It is however notable as being potentially a deliberate tool of a eugenic policy, and/or having eugenic consequences. The anonymous statement above about birth control motivation is categorical nonsense because economical, social and health concerns have motivated individuals to practice birth control ever since someone guessed what caused babies.Cuddlyable3 (talk) 07:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Remaining Objective

It's good to see that this article is finally veering in an objective direction; while I tried to be polite to previous editors, for the past several months I showed this piece to people for its comedic value. I don't have the time to discuss this subject at length, but I will suggest a few changes and additions which you can implement or ignore as you wish:

1. There is still barely any mention of current rates of dysgenic change to traits like IQ; this point is key to understanding the psychological motivation of those who promote eugenics. Consider for instance the study by Lynn and Van Court:

http://www.eugenics.net/papers/evidence.html

"...the relation between fertility and intelligence has been consistently negative for successive birth cohorts from to 1900 to 1979, indicating the presence of dysgenic fertility for all of the 20th century studied thus far. The most recent cohort for which fertility can be regarded as complete is that born in the years 1940—1949. In this cohort, the decline of genotypic intelligence arising from the negative association between intelligence and fertility is estimated at .90 IQ points per generation..."

Any article on eugenics really ought to include information on the rate at which genotypic IQ is dropping, considering the focus given to IQ by eugenists (particularly in more recent years).

2. Towards the end of the article, it states, "...eugenic attitudes and practices may objectify human hereditary traits, placing too much emphasis or value on arbitrary characteristics rather than considering the individual as a whole. Objectification has also been raised as a concern in the medical treatment of patients in general." This is not balanced by the obvious counterargument that not only the medical profession, but the military, the sports arena, and the scholastic system couldn't function without some means of measuring human traits. Are "anti-objectivists" really arguing that the infrastructure of modern society is so dehumanizing that it should be dismantled?

3. Towards the end of the article, it states, "Eugenic policies could also lead to loss of genetic diversity…" This ought to be deleted for a few reasons; firstly, eugenic policies could also lead to a *gain* in genetic diversity through gene splicing and other technological means. Secondly, there is no reason that a gain or loss to genetic diversity by itself can be viewed as positive or negative; most mutations are harmful to those organisms which express them, whereas some mutations are helpful under some circumstances. Finally, only an extremely powerful, global-wide, negative eugenics program could irreversibly remove genetic diversity to a noticeable degree; it's extremely difficult to remove every single allele from a population with a million carriers, and alleles eliminated from a population which employed eugenics on itself would still remain in groups which did not eliminate these alleles. In other words, this criticism of eugenics is invalid.

Harkenbane

I think that, clearly, a factual point ought not to be omitted becuase it fails to make a point against eugenics without the use of other values. Rather "Harkenbane" edit the article so that it suggests that a lack of diversity might not be a bad thing. I suggest "Harkenbane" is a bit full of *it*, if they suggest otherwise ;)

Wyss's revert

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eugenics&diff=28679129&oldid=28679065

It is true that some traits are empirically measurable and universally valued across cultures, some as intelligence. Everyone agrees more intelligence is better than less intelligence. Which is why the word "often" makes more sense here. Secondly, goals of positive eugenics have not necessarily been to encourage "more" reproduction among higher-intelligence classes, but sometimes simply to remove the barriers that existed to them reproducing at all (for example, celibacy for priests). Dsh34 20:53, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

• What is measured as "intelligence" in the psychological sense is not the same thing as the generic term "intelligence". The latter quality is very difficult to measure; the former quality is defined by its mode of measurement ("IQ is what is measured by IQ tests"). Not everyone agrees that the sorts of "intelligence" which are measured in psychometrics are to be valued over ones which are not appreciated by it ("emotional intelligence" doesn't come up at all, for example). I think calling any such trait as "purely empirical" and "race-neutral" is begging the question -- there are lots of people who don't think that intelligence is purely empirical and psychometric assessments of it have ever been "race-neutral". On the second point, the vast majority of "positive eugenics" rhetoric and practices have been about the encouragement of reproduction. If the "removal of barriers" part is to be included at all, it needs to be explained a bit (the only two examples I have seen are a few notes about celibacy in priests -- usually formulated as criticisms of the Catholic Church more than actual calls for reform -- and calls for day-care services for professional women, which are fairly rare). --Fastfission 23:55, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Marcus Garvey tried to return to Africa

Marcus Garvey knew that negroes belong in Africa. The one thing that he wanted to do was go home. He was neither an "African American" nor a believer in eugenics. He got himself into trouble by attempting to leave North America. He is probably agonizing in his grave now that people are saying that he was an "African American." TooPotato 00:05, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

• I think it's a little more complicated than that, but the sentenced has been rephrased regardless to avoid any ambiguity. --Fastfission 01:53, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I study DuBois and know a little about Garvey, and in none of what I have read even suggests that DuBois was an advocate of eugenics. I believe this section should be removed until you cite your source.131.193.131.180 19:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

the "science vs pseudo science" can of worms

i don't know if this issue has been resolved, but the following has just occured to me: maybe it would be best to take the middle ground and say that, as eugenics is an umbrella for a broad variety of methods all aiming at a similar goal, it could potentially be (and has been) executed in several different ways, some of which are clearly pseudoscientific, and some of which are scientific. it is also worth pointing out that just because an endeavor is claimed to be scientific, that doesn't mean that the goal will necessarily ever be reached (eg fusion power). so, even if genetics (and nature vs nurture) are too complex to be understood to the extent necessary for "successful" eugenics, that does not imply that a scientific approach cannot be taken to these subjects. (although personally i think it would be a futile effort.) as for the debate over whether any form of killing has ever been suggested or used in the name of eugenics, i would ask what was the reason for the nazi genocide? i thought it was largely motivated by the belief that the aryan race was in some way superior, which would seem to be connected to ideas of eugenics. halio 14/dec/2005

I agree. StuRat 19:02, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Claiming that something is pseudoscience generally means that its hypothesis are unfalsifiable. On the surface, one aspect of eugenics is clearly pseudoscientific: the claim that some traits are better than others. This is a subjective judgement, and it belongs in religion or the law (and perhaps in psychiatry). Note that nature doesn't make such a judgement. Evolution is guided simply by reproduction rates, which may in turn depend on successful survival. What eugenicists propose is quite a bit different. Neurodivergent 16:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Not to criticise your edit, but I just thought it was extremely ridiculous to say "[N]ature doesn't make such a judgement. Evolution is guided simply by reproduction rates", considering it that evolution itself is mainly based on natural selection, or "survival of the fittest". The only difference between natural evolution and eugenics is that the second is up to our own selection since human evolution has been either stopped or slowed down considerably thanks to technology... JaneDOA

Clearly, Eugenics cannot be a pseudoscience. Even the casual sheep herder or dog breeder knows that eugenics works. The question here, is not if eugenics works, but for what traits does eugenics work. Given the number of fat, ugly people in this world, it would be quite easy to selectively breed people to be more attractive. This cannot be disputed. Whether or not you can eliminate crime via eugenics however, would be difficult, but not impossible to falsify. Martin Heidegger 19:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

One of the main reasons that it is classified as a pseudo-science is that those who claimed to be doing research in the field were not following scientific principles. That is why the Cold Spring research lab, the primary eugenics research facility in the U.S., was shut down. -Will Beback 21:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

There have been pseudo-scientists in probably every science field known to man. The only people calling eugenics a pseudo-science are the opponents, even though there are no valid arguments. Intellectual dishonesty at its best. --Zero g 21:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The people who closed the lab were the ones who'd funded it for decades, in other words, they were the supporters of eugenics. Can you point to someone who has done scientifically valid reseach in eugenics? -Will Beback 21:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Any research regarding selective breeding, genetics, psychometrics, and birth defects is valid research when it comes to the scientific foundation of eugenics. As a social practise less people have died in the name of eugenics than in the name of communism, capitalism, or nationalism. So if you want to label eugenics a pseudo-science based on some questionable research over 60 years ago you might as well call economics a pseudo-science because of the great depression. --Zero g 22:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

So you can't name a single legitimate researcher who calls himself a eugenicist? -Will Beback 22:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Eugenics is based on two very basic scientific principles: 1) When a man and woman have sex and the woman gets pregnant, the child's genes will be based on its parents genes. 2) Genes determine human traits, such as brainsize, height, how many fingers you have, etc.

Now if these two principles were disproven that would make eugenics a pseudo-science. As a social philosophy science isn't really involved since it's a moral stance, which means you can't "research eugenics", only the scientific fields it is based on. Hence I can't give you any "eugenics researchers", though you could look at the following list: list of eugenicists which has a couple of legitimate scientists on it. I hope this clears things up. --Zero g 22:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

You're confusing [[genetic} with eugenics. In fact, there were researchers in eugenics who did lousy research, hence the designation "pseudoscience". Can you specify a particular eugenicist who you think is a stellar example of somene who has practiced solid science in the eugenics field? ? -Will Beback 22:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Not quite, you are confusing a social philosphy with a science. However, given you are right, what exactly would it be that a eugenicist would be researching? Answer that and we may be able to find a few scientists.

Regardless, eugenics isn't a science but a social philosophy, hence it can't be a pseudo-science. Secondly, you can't determine whether a science is pseudo-scientific or not on the researchers, while your theory is interesting it's not correct. Eugenics is mostly considered a pseudo-science for purely ideological reasons, just like the Sovjets once deemed genetics a pseudo-science for ideological reasons. --Zero g 23:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

So if no one is doing any research, how can eugenics be considered a science? What kind of science can't be researched? In the past, people claimed to be doing research only they didn't conform to scientific standards. If you want to see what kind of research they did I suggest you read some of the excellent references in this article. -Will Beback 23:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Since you don't seem to be listening there's no point in carrying this on much further. As the intro states, eugenics isn't a science. At best you could discredit the scientific principles it's based on, however, they are quite sound and widely excepted. I checked the article, and it only mentions some criticised hereditary studies. The modern eugenics section has a couple of examples of recent eugenics programs that were succesful. Anyways, so far you've given no argumentation why eugenics should be considered a science, and ignored the argumentation that the sciences eugenics is based on meet the scientific criteria. --Zero g 11:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

No one practices or advocates for classical eugenics anymore. When they did, they considered it a science. There was at least one research center, the Eugenics Record Office at Cold Spring Harbor. This site tells all about their "scientific" efforts. [4]. -Will Beback 17:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Last time I checked the name of the article wasn't 'classical eugenics'. --Zero g 18:39, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

That's implicit. The other kind, Liberal eugenics, is covered in a different article. -Will Beback 18:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Have you ever thought that the reason that no reputable scientists identify themselves as eugenicists is because morons like beback will make their lives a living hell? The reason he can't point to any is because they're afraid of the people who think the truth about nature isn't egalitarian enough.

Please see WP:CIVIL. Freedom of speech is not valued highly on Wikipedia (arguably for the better) and repeat offenses of this policy can get you blocked. So avoid using 'moron', though the exact rules of behavior is unclear since it seems alright for people like Will B. to call someone a racist whenever the opportunity arises. It's also considered proper to sign your comments which can be done by entering four tilda's: ~~~~.

As a side note, in the race and intelligence article there is a section that backs up your claim that scientists are being intimidated when involving themselves with controversial subjects. --Zero g 18:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Zero g, the civility warning applies to you too. -Will Beback · † · 21:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Eugenics is a pseudo-science if it claims to be artificially selecting for "fitness" or some other term implying general superiority. Evolutionary theory becomes tautologous and meaningless in that case (as with social darwnisim).

If eugenics means artificial selecting for a specific quality (as in animal breeding) then it can be scientific... though I would not elevate it to the position of being a science in it's own right.

Prison and execution

Long term prison sentences and executions also tend to limit the reproductive opportunities of convicts. As convicts are also felt by many to be "less fit" to pass on their genes, should this be included as a potential type of eugenics ? Note that this eugenics tendency could be intentionally countered with sperm banks and conjugal visits. StuRat 18:54, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I think this is very insightful, but the criteria for inclusion is that the idea not be what's called original research. If someone has published the claim that the prison system may be a form of eugenics or even just on the effects of prisons on reproduction, then it could be included, else it cannot. --Rikurzhen 20:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Artificial selection - bad idea

(This might be uncitable, but I thought I'd mention it anyway). Eugenics proposes that humans are better capable than nature at selecting which traits are desirable and which aren't. This is quite dangerous. Consider selecting for giftedness. There's probably a reason why giftedness occurs only in about 2% of the population. If giftedness is genetic, clearly, there must be some kind of survival/reproductive liability associated with it. (Giftedness from good nutrition or rearing would be a different matter). As a thought experiment, consider artificially selecting for brain size. You can't have the brain keep growing indefinitely without a cost. Besides, a bigger brain might be more powerful, but perhaps take longer to develop and learn. In other words, even leaving aside all the ethical issues, eugenics tampers with nature and it could easily end up being catastrophic. Neurodivergent 16:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC) ___________________

Eugenics proposes that humans are better capable than nature at selecting which traits are desirable and which aren't.

This is not really a proposition of eugenics; throughout most of the modern world, human beings assume that nature lacks any sort of desire. By contrast, it is abundantly clear that humans desire certain traits, such as health, youthful appearance, and so on. Eugenic thinkers do propose that the genes underlying those traits they desire are worth increasing in frequency.

Correct. However, it would mean that this is done by some sort of concensus to the detriment of minorities. Not everyone is going to agree exactly as to which traits are desirable/undesirable. What would stop the concensus from being 'only white people should breed' ? Neurodivergent 15:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

This isn't really a question about eugenics so much as the problems with consensus in a large scale society. After all, what is to stop the consensus from being 'only white people should be hired?' or 'only white people should be allowed to own property?' Ultimately, all large scale legislation will be oppressive of minorities, be they racial, political, or religious. For instance, abortion is a divisive issue state by state, and the laws restricting polygamy are still controversial in Utah. My personal preference would be to allow each community more leeway regulating its populace, but again - this isn't a eugenic question.

There's probably a reason why giftedness occurs only in about 2% of the population.

It's inevitable that the extreme forms of a recently evolved trait will be rare - that's why traits such as the tawny hair of Australian Aborigines are rare.

You are assuming that evolution works like a ladder, i.e. it's gradually occurring all the time. In reality populations evolve in bursts, usually due to some environmental change. At this point we could easily be at a stable plateau (or we might have been at a stable plateau recently). Also, it is well known that something like giftedness, while it provides some advantages in the modern world, probably has limited reproductive advantages, as well as having some liabilities of its own. Neurodivergent 15:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm not assuming evolution works like a ladder. I'm merely assuming that mutations occur one at a time. So long as they do, the newer mutations will be rarer than older mutations, even assuming that both are equally viable. Harkenbane 02:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

If giftedness is genetic

The term "giftedness" is arbitrarily defined as having an IQ over 2 standard deviations from the population norm, and IQ is overwhelmingly genetic. This isn't a claim of eugenists, but of psychologists, and it is not in dispute. The currently accepted heritability for IQ is in the vicinity of .75 by adulthood; this is the heritability reported by the 1995 APA Task Force Report, titled "Intelligence, Knowns and Unknowns."

Yes, IQ is very heritable. Depending on the range of concordance, I believe it's 60%-80% heritable. In reality, intelligence is a social construct, per what you suggest, defined as an arbitrary cut-off of the IQ test score spectrum. For argument's sake, let's assume there's one intelligence allele, and that the frequency of this allele is 2%. There are only 2 reasons why the frequency would be so low: (1) The allele comes with some reproductive liabilities, (2) The allele appeared only recently and its frequency is increasing slowly. Option (2) seems rather unlikely to me. Neurodivergent 15:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it's probably something of a combination of 1 and 2, but #2 may not be what you think! The biological limitations are not what renders high psychometric g (and this is what I mean when I use the word "intelligence") a liability in the modern world: this is the ability high intelligence confers on the host organism to circumvent evolutionary imperatives to reproduce. Intelligent people try to delay childbearing more than the less intelligent in order to gain education, status, and wealth, and they use birth control more effectively; the result of this otherwise minor disadvantage is described by eugenists as catastrophic. The only evidence I have seen on the subject is in strong agreement that psychometric g is declining throughout the Western world at anywhere from .05 to .2 SDs per generaion. Harkenbane 02:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

clearly, there must be some kind of survival/reproductive liability associated with it.

Not necessarily, because (again) high IQ appears to be a recently evolved characteristic. Of course, there are indeed known biological liabilities to high IQ, but these are relatively few, being restricted to myopia, allergies, and a larger brain size, as reported in Arthur Jensen's 1998 book, _The g Factor_. Meanwhile, (according to the same source,) IQ scores are known to correlate positively with health, infant survival, memory, motor skills, social skills, facial symmetry, and more efficient metabolism of glucose in the brain; they also correlate inversely with accident proneness, aging, infant mortality, and reaction times. All of these things offer rather obvious survival benefits, and while it is unclear as to whether the net effect would be positive for most forseeable environments, it does seem likely that for humanity's historical environment high IQ was definitely an asset - otherwise humans wouldn't have evolved it at all.

Both the liabilities and advantages you cite are controversial. For example, what if an advantage as well as the giftedness are both made more likely by some environmental factor, such as good nutrition? It is not clear that all the advantages are precisely because of the genetics. Recall that intelligence is not 100% heritable.

You think it not clear, eh? Yes, the heritability is less than 1, but even so, variation in g is still much more genetic than environmental, and therefore it is unlikely that the advantages in question are purely environmental - especially when parcelling out SES and other factors still leaves IQ with predictive power. (Again, see the APA task force report.) Lastly, remember the fact that humans evolved high intelligence at all; if the trait were a greater liability than asset in our evolutionary past, it would not exist as it does today. In fact, in The g Factor, Jensen has shown (through inbreeding depression) that g-boosting alleles are dominant over depressing ones, which suggests that g was positively selected over past generations. Harkenbane 02:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, just the myopia and the allergies would've been considerable liabilities in the ancient world. Perhaps they are not as much in the modern world - which incidentally kind of conflicts with the ideals of eugenics. Neurodivergent 15:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, because the liabilities show low correlations with g (merely 25% for myopia, for example), it would be a simple matter for eugenics to promote good eyesight, freedom from allergies and intelligence all at once. Still, you've brought up another interesting point: As a general observation, eugenists dislike civilization with its dysgenic cities, yet they desire (or claim to desire) the preservation of civilization. Deception? Self deception, even? Harkenbane 02:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Based on research carried out by Lynn and Van Court (which I mentioned in a previous post) the primary liability associated with high IQ appears to be a complex one resulting from a combination of behavioral differences and technological feedback loops. It seems that high IQ groups develop societies and create technologies which allow their individual members to curtail their own reproduction in order to enjoy greater professional success and personal pleasure. While this line of reasoning is speculative, high IQ individuals do show greater success in limiting their own fertility than do those who are lower in this trait. This is precisely the issue which modern eugenic thinkers wish to address.

In other words, even leaving aside all the ethical issues, eugenics tampers with nature and it could easily end up being catastrophic.

Interestingly, this is the exact argument made by eugenists - that birth control, life support, vaccinations and welfare safety nets all tamper with nature by altering selection pressures in such a way as to reduce the frequency of desired traits throughout the population in question, and that the end result - absent some sort of eugenic intervention, of course - will be a catastrophic loss of civilization itself. Right or wrong, this is the argument usually made by eugenists; as an example, consider Marian Van Court's words, here: www.eugenics.net/papers/caseforeugenics.html

Actually, the fact that we are able to artificially compensate for genetic liabilities (with medicines and surgery, for example) does suggest we're making genetic drift more likely. However, eugenics is the other extreme. I don't think we'd be competent enough to breed humans. Breeding of farm animals could be taken as a reference. I understand some problems have occurred with that, such as: breeding chickens for size has produced blind chickens. Neurodivergent 15:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

But such breeding programs are totally unmotivated by humanitarian concerns; after all, does anyone believe that the chickens you describe are being bred for their own benefit? Eugenics as applied to humans could be as careful, slow, and gentle, or as rash, quick, and harsh, as desired. Harkenbane 02:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The fact that no reader could learn the information presented throughout this post by studying the Wikipedia article serves to highlight a glaring weakness of the article as it currently stands - encyclopedia articles should be informative. Harkenbane 08:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Wikipedia articles about controversial subjects should leave the reader with a good idea of what the controversy is about, and a good understanding of the pro and con arguments. That said, much of this discussion might not be citable. Neurodivergent 15:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

The information I provided is not as uncitable as you may think (after all, I've already given a few cites throughout these posts) although to be honest I'm not interested in typing in the necessary passages with proper references only to be forced into an edit war with the rabidly subjective anti-eugenists on Wikipedia. My misgivings are ultimately inconsequential; this article won't be encyclopedic until the writers learn to understand the topic they are pretending to educate others about. Harkenbane 02:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Alberta eugenics board

I find it odd that there is no mention of the Alberta eugenics program in this page. The program ran 1928-1972, and resulted in the sterilization of 2832 people (over fifty operations were performed in 1971). Some of those castrated were men with Down's syndrome (which the eugenics board accepted was not heritable, the men were sterile before castration). The board had a demonstrable bias towards castrating Catholics and immigrants from Eastern Europe. In 1995 the government was successfully sued by a woman (Catholic of Polish descent) sterilized for "feeblemindedness". She was quite sharp, and delivered guest lectures on heritability of intelligence for a course on behavioural genetics in the Psychology Department at the University of Alberta (the Department was founded by the director of the eugenics board). For more info see references at [5]

Sulston, Watson and "voluntary eugenics"

From the article:

While any ideas described as "eugenic" are still highly controversial in both public and scholarly spheres, a few distinguished geneticists including Nobel Prize winners John Sulston ("I don't think one ought to bring a clearly disabled child into the world") [6] and Watson ("Once you have a way in which you can improve our children, no one can stop it.") have recently spoken in support of "voluntary" eugenics.

The term "voluntary eugenics" was introduced last April and has never been supported by a reference for Watson. The article cited for Sulston does not show that Sulston advocates eugenics. This seems like an attempt to portray advocates of genetic screening as advocates of eugenics without citing sources that support the claim. --JWSchmidt 17:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I didn't add it, but here's a source for the Watson quote: [7]. -Will Beback 17:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I get an error page for that link. --JWSchmidt 17:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. I was looking at a Google cache copy: [8] Apparently he gave the quote to the BBC for a documentary, so this article is not the original source. If you Google the sentence you should be able to find other sources as well. -Will Beback 17:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

That source shows someone else talking about eugenics, not Watson. Can you fill in the argument to explain why Wikipedia should suggest that Watson supports eugenics? --JWSchmidt 17:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

What besides eugenics is Watson referring to? He's talking about using a knowledge of genes to "improve" children. I'm not sure what your issue is here, and why you aren't spending a couple of minutes finding these sources yourself instead of deleting and arguing. Here Watson is tied to eugenics: http://www.alternet.org/story/16026/ and also here: http://www.genetics-and-society.org/resources/cgs/20030626_tompaine_reynolds.html For an interesting POV on the opposite side, which complains that Watson is insufficiently supportive of eugenics, see this: http://theoccidentalquarterly.com/vol3no3/lj-watson.html. I'm going to restore the paragraph, with a link to a source of his comment. Cheers, -Will Beback 22:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what your issue is here<-- I'll try expanding on what I wrote earlier above. The term "voluntary eugenics" is introduced in the article, but no reference is cited to explain the term "voluntary eugenics". The article says that Sulston and Watson have spoken in support of voluntary eugenics and I am requesting references to support this. It is not my job to find references to support the claims of other editors. So far we have established that you believe that Watson has "spoken in support of voluntary eugenics". To support this idea you might provide a reference showing Watson saying that he supports voluntary eugenics. Alternatively, you might provide a reference in which some authority describes what the term "voluntary eugenics" means and how what Watson has advocated fits that definition of "voluntary eugenics". Lacking that, you might provide a reference in which some authority describes what the term "voluntary eugenics" means and then say in the article that what Watson has said fits that definition of "voluntary eugenics". I suspect we are on the path of finding a definition of "voluntary eugenics" that covers anyone who advocates of genetic screening. If so, then I question the need for having a paragraph that describes Sulston and Watson as having spoken in support of it. Millions of people have spoken in support of genetic screening. I suspect that the vast majority of people who advocate genetic screening would reject the label "voluntary eugenics" being applied to genetic screening. --JWSchmidt 01:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• • The difference between "voluntary eugenics" and "genetic screening" is in the goal. Genetic screening is usually for the benefit of the individual; eugenics (voluntary or not) is for the benefit of society or the gene pool as a whole. There are quotes attributed to Watson that I have read which indicate his interests are not on the individual level, but directed at species or society-wide goals. There are a few quoted in this review, for example. Now of course I think that if we don't have any really strong quotes showing they are interested in voluntary eugenics per se we should take care to indicate that this is not what they would have called it, but I personally don't think it is a mischaracterization of Watson's views. --Fastfission 02:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• • I read the article on Sulston and have to say that characterizing him as advocating "voluntary eugenics" is really not honest. I can see why the editor would frame it that way, but a more intellectually honest presentation of that article can be made. I don't think the article cited is so far outside the subject area of the eugenics article that it ought not to be cited, but less shoehorning of Sulston's views is required to avoid putting a POV spin on what Sulston actually said. Pete.Hurd 02:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• • • Fastfission, can you point us towards a good reference that describes the difference between "voluntary eugenics" and "genetic screening" in the way you did, above? --JWSchmidt 02:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Yes, but it'll take me a day to look it up again. There is a lot of literature on eugenics and genetic counseling, which is where these sorts of distinctions are usually most forcefully made (for obvious reasons). I haven't gone through it in a while though myself. --Fastfission 13:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• • • Perhaps it might be worth looking into a genetic counselling source? There are a great many university programs devoted to training the counselors working at virtually every hospital in the civilized world. I'm certain they frequently address the issues which seem to be distressing Will Beback et al, and adding information from such authoritatifve sources would greatly increase the value of this article to others with similar concerns. Pete.Hurd 03:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Nietzsche

I object to the inclusion of Neitzsche in See also. While Nietzsche was used by the Nazis to justify eugenics, and his sister changed his works to suit her pro-eugenics belief, there is not a direct link between Nietzsche and eugenics. The link serves only to perpetuate a misconception about Nietzsche. Theshibboleth 06:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

(Moved here from censorship talk page) --Muchness 10:12, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• Hmm, I hadn't noticed that. I agree -- putting him as a "see also" is a not very POV way of implying he advocated eugenics. If that's to be discussed, it should be done in the text of the article, not as a "see also" link. The same goes for a number of things listed there (i.e. the Genographic Project, which has no official or even unofficial links to eugenics).--Fastfission 16:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• I agree too. Connection of Nietzsche to eugenics is less than tenuous: remove it.DonSiano 15:50, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I think I'm the one who had put Nietzsche in "See Also". I didn't mean that as a weasely "look, Nietzsche is evil, he's an eugenicist", but rather "Nietzsche said some stuff that'd probably be relevant in a discussion of the history of eugenics, but I don't have the time or knowledge to fit it in the article, so I'll just put his name under See Also in the meanwhile".

I still do think it'd be nice to hve a little bit on Nietzsche, contrasting his view with Galton's, etc. I'm thinking of "The sick are the greatest danger for the healthy; it is not from the strongest that harm comes to the strong, but from the weakest." (in On the Genealogy of Morals [9]), the wole "slave morality" thing, etc. Flammifer 06:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Objectification

I disagree with "that it has a potential for "objectifying" human characteristics" belongs in the intro para. Or anywhere else for that matter. What in the world is wrong about "objectifying" human characteristics? Objectifying people (treating them indecently, like objects) is one thing, objectifying human characteristics is quite another. Scientists of all sorts objectify human characteristics all the time--they try to make human characteristics more precisely defined, measureable and separate one from another all the time. Human characters include such things as height, weight, age, blood pressure, metabolic rate, chromosome count, health, intelligence and beauty. Objectifying characters such as these is a rather widespread phenomenon, and there is nothing at all wrong in it. Medical progress, in fact relies on it. If eugenics promotes this activity, then that is good, and doesn't belong in a sentence with genocide in it.

Moreover, farther down in the article in the section on this the words "in this context" appear, which is actually incorrect. Shakespear never used the word objectification, nor anything like it. The sentence has no business there. Therefore I'm removing this as a concern. DonSiano 16:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Dead Link(s)

Removed Eugenics Watch link. (The entire www.africa2000.com website seem to have disappeared.)--Avsn 23:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Sowell 'advocacy'?

Some conservative commentators have also proposed eugenics-like programs. Thomas Sowell advocated differential birth rates in his book Ethnic America

But the quote "The internal distribution ... to reproduce themselves" doesn't demonstrate that Sowell advocates anything. It's purely descriptive. Is there other evidence that Sowell actually advocates a differential birth rate? --DudeGalea 15:30, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

No-one's come up with a quote that demonstrates that Sowell actually advocates eugenics, so I'll remove this one. If there's another quote from that book that shows advocacy, then that quote should go in the article. --DudeGalea 20:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

The movie: The Black Stork

I believe this movie was made in 1917 highlighting a doctor who convinces the parents of a crippled baby to let it die. Sounds revolting, but I would like to buy a copy to watch. It sounds like a movie you have to see to believe it was ever made - sort of like the old black and white movie Freaks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Seekingtruthnow (talk • contribs) 05:40, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, there is a book about this film: Martin S. Pernick, The Black Stork: Eugenics and the Death of "Defective" Babies in American Medicine and Motion Pictures Since 1915 (Oxford University Press, 1999). I'm not sure where one could find a copy but I imagine there are a few floating around as a consequence of the book. --Fastfission 13:32, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

• • As far as I know, the only copies available are ones made personally by Pernick; I know that John Warner at Yale has a VHS copy, so if you are really interested you might contanct him.--ragesoss 15:18, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Um

In the first paragraph regarding modern faces of eugenics, wouldn't birth control seem a bit extreme? A few others in the list seem awkward as well. PondScumEsq —The preceding comment was added on 00:35, 14 June 2006.

That's a list of tools that were used to pursue eugenic outcomes, whether voluntarily or involuntarily. If you read the material on eugenics you'll see a close connection with birth control. In fact, the modern U.S. proponent of birth ontrol, Margaret Sanger, was also a proponent of eugenics. -Will Beback 00:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

No, Margaret Sanger did not advocate eugenics. It's a misquotation and a sound-byte used by antichoice persons to discredit her. 72.225.142.168 21:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

As Will Beback says, it is a question of ways and means. If you're having trouble with the conceptual side of it, basically anything that can result in differential reproduction can be used for eugenics, ranging from empty urgings at one side ("Breed more! Breed less!") to the extremely coercives at the other. --Fastfission 01:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Margaret Sanger was a very active eugenicist, and this comes from my own summation of an extraordinary amount of reading from her works. Note, I'm pro-choice. MAB, Atlanta, GA 66.245.103.37 01:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Sexual selection

I suggest that a link to the topic Sexual selection should be included. It is a form of eugenics - selection of who one will reproduce with in light (consciously or, more often, unconsciously) of the expected children. (Those who believe that non-coercive eugenics is wrongful are advocating for random mating, in other words, if their viewpoint is consistent.) A link on the topic that people may, or may not, find of interest is http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/eletters/292/5520/1303 Allens 16:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you've gotten a bit confused over what eugenics is. Sexual and natural selection are both mechanisms of evolution as they normally play out. Eugenics is a conscious attempt to influence evolution. Those who are not in favor of eugenics are not necessarily advocating "random" mating, they are advocating that people should be able to choose their mates (and reproduce) as they see fit, without external (much less state) intervention. To say that "sexual selection is a form of eugenics" is like saying "natural selection is a form of eugenics" or saying "evolution is a form of eugenics" which totally misses the point (and de-values the term) of what "eugenics" is. --Fastfission 16:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I can see this argument - that it is not eugenics - for unconscious sexual selection (just as I can see the argument that "non-coercive eugenics" is not eugenics). But conscious sexual selection? And I was specifically citing those who are against "non-coercive eugenics" - as in, against eugenics carried on without state (or other forms of coercive) intervention. (Who one has children with influences far more of the genomes of those children than any modern means of reprogenetics by selection among the resulting offspring, given practical limits on how many embryos one can produce and test.) Of course, as a geneticist with an interest in human genetics, I am biased on this issue. Allens 16:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

"Conscious sexual selection" driven by a culture adopting eugenic theories wouldn't really be any different than a state sanctioned policy. For example, religious and tribal mores can be highly coercive without needing an overweening central authority enforcing things.

POV tag on Canada section

While no one doubts Tommy Douglas wrote a thesis about eugenics, the section takes that fact and then uses it to establish a negative connection between eugenics and "socialism", which is unsupported by the link provided, so it is original research and POV. Qutezuce 06:45, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Eugenics and Canada

Perhaps someone should put in there that McGill largely supported the movement, and that the opponents to the movement were *gasp*, that's right, from the Catholic Church! I don't have the articles, but a simple search of JSTOR or Academic Search Premier will yield some interesting info. Phobal 15:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Eugenics in Latin America

The following is the whole of this section:

State policies in some Latin American countries advocated the whitening of society by increased European immigration and the eradication of indigenous populations. This can be seen particularly in Brazil and Argentina; in these countries, this process is known as branqueamento and blanqueamiento, respectively.

The past tense is used in "advocated" which implies that this is no longer the case. However, the next sentence says "this can be seen" and "the process is known", both of which are slightly ambiguous as to whether the use of present tense means it is currently practiced, or if it is only currently known as a former practice. Furthermore, there is no information here as to dates, time frame, etc. Does anyone have more information about this? It would be helpful to have details here, as the chronology is all pretty unclear. Thanks, romarin [talk ] 14:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

There never were any laws related to eugenics in Brazil. The article is incorrect and I have removed that piece of text. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.72.218.8 (talk) 05:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC).

Wrong. See Nancy Stepan The Hour of Eugenics and article work. and Zimmermann, Eduardo A. "Racial Ideas and Social reform: Argentina, 1890-1916." The Hispanic American Historical Review 72, no. 1 (1992): 23-46. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.184.7.97 (talk) 03:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Crown v. Whittaker-Williams?

You leave the last paragraph before you start the "criticism" section with no citations. This is the section where you claim the UK jailed Whittaker-Williams. I have found no evidence that this case ever occured. It would be greatly informative for people to learn about this case, where is there more information on it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.135.224.110 (talk • contribs)

I also can't find any reference to such a case. I've removed the reference to it for the time being. --Fastfission 18:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Down Syndrome (Trisomy-21)

I have deleted the word Down Syndrome from the diseases vs. traits section because Trisomy-21 is not a genetic disease but a series of traits that are common to babies born with an extra chromosome. There is no validity to the statement that Down Syndrome causes harm to the families of these babies or to society in general as the majority of people with Trisomy-21 are productive members of society and generally happy people and positive additions to their families just like any other baby. Whoever wrote that paragraph seems to be extremely ignorant in regards to this syndrome. Please check your facts before making any additions to this topic. The same goes for spina bifida.Jackman69 22:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I have once again removed the word Down Syndrome from the diseases vs. traits section because it is incorrectly referred to as a genetic disease. There is also a need for citations and sources to back up the biased information that is presented in this paragraph.Jackman69 22:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

If Down Syndrome is a result of being born with an extra chromosome, and chromosomes contain genes, how is it inaccurate to say that Down Syndrom is a genetic disease? Given the context of this article -- eugenics, not genetics -- the difference between "genetic disease" and "inherited disease caused by additional chromosomes" seems so small as to make no odds. 71.198.65.9 07:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Bias In This Article

The heavy bias in this article towards a pro-eugenics stance and the tendency to downplay the negative aspects and champion the alleged positive aspects seems to make it a pretty useless article as far as research goes. No one even mentions the fact that purebred animals suffer from more disease and live shorter lifespans than regular animals. Or what about the fact that the genius project was a complete failure?

Richard Feynman was an important physicist and he only had an average IQ.

How valid are current forms of IQ measurement anyway?

Eugenics as a social philosophy or psuedoscience is no more valid than psychic hotlines or voodoo dolls.-unsigned

Just thought I'd mention Feynman's reported IQ score of 124 is about the 95th percentile.--Nectar 00:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Incest laws are purely motivated by eugenic principles, so quite the opposite is true.

The genius project was a success since it broke the taboo for other sperm banks with most now having eugenic principles to not accept donors who have genetic diseases running in the family.

Unless you want to steer the article further down the path of intellectual dishonesty I'd say this article has an anti-eugenics stance. --Zero g 11:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• The main task for the Eugenics article must be a description of eugenics. In my view, criticism of eugenics should mainly be restricted to one section of the eugenics article. The current criticism section of the the article is not very good. It might be time to start a new article called Criticism of eugenics where the critics of eugenics can be fully described. --JWSchmidt 14:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea, though the article also needs a section on eugenic ideology, which would likely come off as pro-eugenics. From previous discussions I get the feeling that several editors would object to that.

Currently basicly every section has criticism interwoven with it which doesn't benefit the article and makes it read like a schoolbook from some random totalitarian nation. --Zero g 17:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I would not recommend splitting the criticism out into a separate article. It's best if the criticisms are handled in the same article as the topic so as to provide a comprehensive treatment. -Will Beback 20:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Since some people feel the article is too positive and others feel it is too critical maybe we are getting close to a middle ground where "conflicting views are presented fairly". I suggest that everyone re-read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. The main goal of this article must be to describe the "facts" about eugenics. Each fact should be "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute". The article must then describe the disputes that have existed over eugenics and we need to objectively characterize the positions of advocates and critics of eugenics. The NPOV policy page uses the Abortion article as an example of how to deal with topics that are subject to partisan disputes. In the abortion article there is mostly an objective account of what abortion is. The controversey over abortion is concentrated in one section called Abortion debate. Currently the eugenics article has a section called criticism. The name of that section could be changed ("eugenics debate"?), but it makes sense to try to keep criticism and debate about eugenics in a designated part of the article. If criticism and debate is sprinkled through the entire article, then the reader is distracted from learning what eugeincs is. Eugenics IS NOT the debate about eugenics. The abortion article links to Abortion debate. If a "criticism" or "debates" section of an article is more than a few paragraphs long, it makes sense to start a new article that can deal fully with what is clearly a significant amount of criticism and debate. --JWSchmidt 21:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

One of the big problems with eugenics as a topic in general is that the definition of it is very hard to pin down. Historically it has been used to describe everything from taking vitamins to genoicide. But when most people say "eugenics" they are invoking a specific historical definition of it, what the historians call "hardline eugenics". But even then there were what the historians call "reform eugenics", which was very different. At the moment so much could fall under the heading of eugenics that it is hard to know really where to start. Those who are in favor of it prefer the most all-encompassing definition, while those who want to distance themselves from it (i.e. genetic counselors) prefer a more strict definition. What I'm getting at is that it is hard to define eugenics without aligning with one side or another in it implicitly.

In any case, on a more practical level, I've thought that the history of eugenics, especially in the United States, could probably be split out into a separate article, and the section included here could be tightened up. (We already have a split of the German content at Nazi eugenics). --Fastfission 21:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd say including the Holocaust would be a more all-encompasing viewpoint on eugenics. Though bordering on original research it might be an idea to (besides the obvious split between positive, negative, and liberal eugenics) split the article up into scientific and cultural determinations of desirable traits instead of the arguable decision to treat them as one and the same. --Zero g 22:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

When I say "all-encompassing" I am talking about invocation of eugenics, which most people do primarily in reference to history. Almost everyone who refers to "eugenics" today is talking about hardline eugenics. Even those who advocate it today know it refers primarily to that — hence Agar's attempt to create a notion of "liberal eugenics" which he contrasts with what most people consider eugenics ("authoritarian eugenics", in his parlance). (Liberal eugenics is a relabeling of positive eugenics, not a separate thing, in my understanding of it). There are very few people who use "eugenics" to refer to the all-encompassing definition of Galton anymore. I don't know how one would split up the scientific/cultural determination aspect (they are not mutually exclusive categories), though I could see trying to split it up along the lines of the positive/negative distinction (i.e. those people who want to increase frequencies of traits versus those who want to reduce frequencies). --Fastfission 23:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Too many names are being protected selfishly by the authors of this article.

Pseudoscience? (7/06)

It's not possible to support eugenics without having a personal vision of how the world should be. There is no scientific validity to eugenics because it is always based on personal opionions on what some people might see as improvements to the human race. I don't understand why they have allowed this article to be taken over by eugenics advocates who are obviously trying to push some agenda.

It's not possible to oppose eugenics without having a personal vision of how the world should be either. Since you state that eugenics isn't a science it would be POV to state it's a pseudoscience. Instead you should try to name it what it really is. I believe that 'social philosophy' comes quite close. --Zero g 21:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Eugenics itself is conceived as the engineering branch of genetics. Engineering is a (applied) science, even though practioners must sometimes make subjective judgements.--Nectar 21:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The issue is that deciding what are "good" genes (as the "eu" in eugenics means) is not a scientific concept. Good and bad are value judgements that fall outside the realm of science (or so it is argued). Examples of "bad" genes in the past have been populations considered "diseases" in certain societies: gays, Jews, Roma, "criminals," "useless eaters," etc. Jokestress 21:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it's safe to say that (lack of) genes that result in a baby being born without lungs causing it to die right after birth can be considered "bad". If not by phylosophical means a simple poll would do. Regardless of this notion, vague concepts like communism and capitalism in whose names millions have been killed aren't generally the subject of the kind of scientific scrutiny which is displayed currently. The reductio ad Hitlerum you just pulled doesn't make for a good argument either. Last time I checked the Nazis were far from an authority in the science field of genetics. --Zero g 21:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

You're conflating genetics and eugenics. In the first three decades of the 20th Century, American corporate philanthropy combined with prestigious academic fraud to create the pseudoscience eugenics that institutionalized race politics as national policy. Its counterpart in Germany was even more virulent, but the issue at hand is whether eugenics is pseudoscience. Genetics=science. Eugenics=pseudoscience. Your lungless baby rhetoric misses the point. From a strictly scientific viewpoint, a lungless baby is neither good nor bad. Jokestress 22:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Mutual political situations exist today with regard to global warming, nuclear energy, and genetically modified food. The fact that the media and political movements portray nuclear energy as unsafe, as well as various other claims inconsistent with reality, doesn't make applied nuclear theory pseudo-science. Heck, from a scientific viewpoint nuclear energy is neither safe or unsafe!

My question remains, why the insistence to treat something you don't believe to be a science as a science by labeling it a pseudoscience? --Zero g 22:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The engineering article defines engineering as "the application of scientific and technical knowledge to solve human problems." An engineer might be brought in to try to make a system more efficient. Medicine seeks to maintain and restore health. It's a confusion to apply the standards of natural science to applied science. --Nectar 22:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

That's a very lucid point, Nectar. However - and in spite of what my dictionary says - I'm not convinced that eugenics isn't a social philosophy, at least in this day and age. There are no professional eugenists whom congress consults when they wish to consider the genetic impact of their legislation, for instance. Unlike doctors or engineers, self-described eugenists tend to be employed in a variety of unrelated fields and are only "eugenists" in that they believe in the importance of considering the genetic quality of humankind. In this sense, eugenics is really a political position, and viewed through this lens the discussion of eugenics itself makes a great deal more sense, and it becomes very easy to see why there is such a strong push to stigmatize eugenics by the modern mainstream, which is itself strongly in opposition to eugenics. Perhaps the trouble is that an applied science which is meant to be applied to human populations *is* a social philosophy. After all, conservatives and radicals attempt to apply the findings of economic and social science in much the same way that eugenists do; they merely rely on different scientific findings and define their goals in different ways. Harkenbane 22:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Eugenics as a science or social philosophy is on par with Scientology. No human traits can be isolated to one gene anyway, every trait comes from a combination of different genes and the environment in which the person develops. Therefore trying to alter genes or remove genes to improve humans isn't good science. The whole idea of "genetic quality" is exaclty what's wrong with using eugenics whether the Nazis do it or anyone else. You don't need to associate it with Nazis to show why it's wrong. And it's not so much wrong as it is just plain stupid and backwards thinking. You may as well call alchemy and witchcraft social philosophies.152.163.100.69 23:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

You've misunderstood the issues and are making strawman statements. Changing the distribution of genes by definition changes the distribution of traits. For non-scientists who don't believe that, concrete evidence is provided by the results of genetic counseling programs, such as the reduction of Tay Sachs in Israel. Please note the WP:3RR policy.--Nectar 23:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I like to think that the above post by User:152.163.100.69 makes my point. We "don't need to associate it with Nazis" (but we'll associate it with "Scientology" and "witchcraft"), it "isn't good," it's "wrong," "stupid," and "backwards." Applied sciences like medicine and engineering rarely receive this kind of condemnation. Ultimately my opinion on the "what is eugenics" issue is not especially strong, but I think it really is a social philosophy more than it is a science - and the reason it's claimed to be a pseudoscience is at least in part because the social philosophy of eugenics is offensive to people who hold opposing political views. Harkenbane 00:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems to be that way, though I guess that also makes the point that discussion is futile. Perhaps we should leave the introduction line as it is making it clear to readers to take the article with a grain of salt. --Zero g 00:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing more to the pseudoscience claim than confusion between natural science and applied science. It can be debated whether it's best described as social philosophy (per Harkenbane), applied genetics, or both.--Nectar 01:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Applied genetics is not necessarily eugenics, though. For instance, there was an interesting NYT piece last week on a Soviet scientist who bred two separate populations of rats and foxes since the 1950s, selecting solely for aggressiveness and friendliness. Within that time, the populations are clearly delineated. If someone did the same experient with humans, would it be eugenics? Which is the "good" trait-- aggressive, or passive? Depends on your POV. The application of genetics could be dysgenic, especially if we eliminate a population whose biodiversity could be the key to our survival as a species. For instance, if we "breed out" achondroplasia through screening and counseling, but people with that trait are the only ones who can survive some future viral epidemic, we'd have applied genetics in a dysgenic manner. Jokestress 01:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The terms "good" and "bad," or "desirable" and "undesirable" are found throughout applied sciences (as well as social philosophies). Just as some engineers make cars to be heavier and others lighter, if someone or some group bred humans to be aggressive on purpose, while others bred humans to be passive on purpose, it would be eugenics in both cases. As to your claim that the application of genetics could be dysgenic, the application of any science can backfire; for instance, medicines sometimes offer more dangerous side effects than the condition they purportedly treat. Sorry, eugenics isn't a pseudoscience; it is either an applied science or (as I prefer) a social philosophy.

Regardless of your personal beliefs regarding definitions, there is a significant body of published work that describes eugenics as a pseudoscience, and the article should reflect that in order to be NPOV. Jokestress 03:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

That's untrue; in the scientific and medical literature, authors are careful not to make such unfounded blanket statements. Instead certain eugenicists, sometimes entire groups, are called pseudoscientists, but I have never seen an outright statement in a major scientific journal to the effect of "eugenics is a pseudoscience". Certainly few people consider Galton or Pearson pseudoscientists, even if their work isn't flawless. Indeed, one of today's more prestigious journals on genetics is the Annals of Human Genetics, which started out life as the Annals of Eugenics, and changed names mainly because the term "eugenics" had grown associated with the Nazis, not because they had somehow repudiated their previous work. --Delirium 18:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe that eugenics should be categorized as a pseudoscience. It's goals do not lead to scientific discovery but social control, and much of its evidence is in someway anecdotal (i.e. The Genious Factory), hardly conclusive. Nor should it be categorized as a social science.--Wikiphilia 03:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, I observe a lack of modern scientific research in various areas due to moral/ideological stigmas. So I'd say anti-eugenic/egalitarian thought results in less scientific discovery and the same (if not more) social control, especially of the opinion forming nature. --Zero g 19:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Eugenicist as a subcategory of pseudoscientist

I stumbled on the category:Eugenicists and saw that it was a subcategory of category:Pseudoscientists. That struck me as weird and I changed it, only to have it promptly reverted. [10] I was not aware of the discussion here.

Frankly, I cannot see how this subcategorisation can survive basic WP principles. Without even wanting to start the debate (see above: Galton is obviously an eugenicist, and he is obiously not a pseudo-scientist), there is obviously no consensus behind such a categorisation. Whether or not an article should include the POV that "Eugenics is pseudoscience" is beyond doubt (it should). But categorisations may not be POV. Arbor 19:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC) (Later edit:) The relevant item from Wikipedia talk:Categorization seems to be this:

Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category.

The way I read that, for maintaining the hierarchy “Pseudoscientists -> Eugenicists” we would need to (1) ignore the guideline, which is acceptable since it is only a guideline, but would need some discussion, or (2) argue that said categorization is self-evident and uncontroversial. From the discussions on this page I infer that (2) would be a difficult case to make. Maybe I am missing something. I asked the editor who performed the quoted reversal to respond on this page, but other editors are welcome to join in. Arbor 08:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

It does meet basic WP principles, see WP:NPOV and WP:NPOV/FAQ#Pseudoscience. It is not NPOV not to categorise pseudoscience into category:pseudoscience. Likewise, people who support pseudoscience go in their own parallel categories (category:pseudoscientists). — Dunc|☺ 08:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I was no asking about the existence of category:pseudoscientists. I am asking about category:eugenicists begin a subcategory of it. There are other reasons than pseudoscientism for being an eugenicist. (Many famous scientists were self-described eugenicists.) You can be a pseudoscientists and a eugenicist, but the latter does not imply the former. The existence of the categories is not in dispute, their relationship is. Arbor 09:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it is anachronistic to classify eugenics as a pseudoscience. In its heyday (in Britain 1905-25, say) it was a 'proper' science, with a department at UCL and scientific data collecting and statistical analysis. Its a branch of enquiry which real scientists followed, but which proved a dead end (from a scientific poit of view). I'd say that a pseudoscience is one which has never been accepted as a science but wears the trappings, such as Aura analysis, Dianetics, and Dowsing. I'd therefore support removing this article from the pseudosciences category. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 09:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but that was not was I was asking about. Currently, the category of all Eugenicists (including, say, Galton), is a subcategory of Pseudoscientists. Thereby each and ever Eugenicist, independent of his or her scientific credentials, becomes a pseudoscientist, and I believe that is (not only completely wacko but also) obvioulsy in violation of the rules about non-controversial categorisations. I am not advocating to abolish either category, nor advocating to remove this article (i.e., Eugenics) from the pseudoscience category. Arbor 10:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I misunderstood. I certainly agree that people like Galton and Karl Pearson shouldn't be counted as pseudoscientists. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 12:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The article explains why eugenics is a pseudoscience. And as I stated, to meet WP:NPOV, pseudoscience must be categorised appropriately. — Dunc|☺ 15:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Duncharris, your comments are extremely concise and I am not sure I get your point, especially in relation to WP:NPOV. Just to see where you stand would you agree with the statement “There is no controversy about whether all eugenicists are pseudoscientists”? Arbor 16:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Dunc. The description of eugenics as pseudoscience is appropriate. Even during its heyday, there was a problem of pseudoscience because eugenics sought to do something that was inherently non-scientific - "improve" humans. Not everything they did was pseudoscience, but the underlying assumptions about what they were trying to do was not scientific, since, as i understand it, there was a lack of an objective classification of what "improvement" they were trying to make. More important to the inclusion in the category is the fact that, as the article it self documents, eugenics has been described that way by reputable sources. Please note the difference between adding Galton to the pseudoscientist category and adding eugenicists as a whole. Guettarda 18:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

In case it's not coming thru clearly: Arbor's point is not "eugenics is not pseudoscience", but rather "all eugenicists are not also pseudoscientists". The obvious counter-example is Galton. This is a question about whether the category:Eugenicists should be a subcategory of category:Pseudoscientists. This would appear to be a controversial classification. --Rikurzhen 18:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Yep, and as I said, there's a difference between adding cat:ps as a parent cat, as opposed to adding it directly to Galton's article. Guettarda 19:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Now you lost me. On which side “the difference” are you? Galton being mislabelled seems to be a bad idea, whether it is by implication or explicitly. Still, unless somebody here makes the claim that ”There is no controversy that all eugenicists are pseudoscientists” we need not even discuss the sub-categorisation—it obviously violates the guideline. Arbor 19:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

In thinking about this I tend to go with Arbor on it. The blanket classification of all eugenics as a pseudoscience bothers me a bit, but the classification of eugenicists as pseudoscientists does seem a bit misleading, especially since "eugenics" was, in many circles, thought to be just applied human genetics for many years (and indeed was human genetics before the field was established more rigorously). The problem with the categorization here is it implies that "all eugenicists are pseudoscientists" which isn't always true, and neither are all definitions of eugenics pseudoscience. In the case of labeling "Eugenics" in the pseudoscience category, at least we can be expected to cover in the article what forms are and are not considered pseudoscience. But with the eugenicists cat, we're two removed from the rather incorrect category: it would not make sense to have a full explanation of whether Galton was or was not a pseudoscientist by nature of his being a eugenicist in his own article. I don't know, it all seems unnecessary to me as well. --Fastfission 21:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I happily defer to FF. Whatever he has to say on this issue is good enough for me. Guettarda 02:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

With regards to the comment of "improvement to the human race"... that is missing the point. Eugenics is about (the current) society. With regards to intelligence, it's something that has a comprehensive amount of evidence suggesting that a eugenic change of average intelligence in society would be generally beneficial for society and most of the members of said society. Peoplesunionpro 23:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

characterization of eugenics in the first sentence

We need to find a way to deal with controversy over how to characterize eugenics. There have been several suggestions for how to characterize eugenics in the first sentence of the article. In order to get through this, I think we are going to have to cite sources. The first sentence was
"Eugenics is a social philosophy which advocates the improvement of human hereditary traits through various forms of intervention."
and it cited an article by Frederick Osborn which describes eugenics as a social philosophy. However, we need to find a non-controversial characterization of eugenics. Does anyone have an objection to characterizing eugenics as a social philosophy? In the section of the article above the table of contents we also have,
"Critics argue that eugenics is immoral, and is based in or is itself a pseudoscience."
There is no citation for this statement. Can someone who advocates characterizing eugenics as a psuedocience cite a supporting reference? One possible approach to introducing the idea of pseudoscience into the introductory section above the table of contents might be to say something like, "Some advocates of eugenics adopted an approach that, without scientific evidence to support their claims, proposed that race can be used as a basis for labeling people as inferior or superior." To support this statement, it would be possible to cite someone like Ernst Mayr and his discussion of eugenics that can be found in his book, The Growth of Biological Thought. We could then cite a scholarly source that describes past attempts to produce a scientific basis for racism and cite authorities who characterize such efforts as pseudoscience.
--JWSchmidt 01:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

"It took centuries for three disciplines--socioeconomics, philosophy, and biology--to come together in a resilient and fast-moving pseudoscience that would change the world forever."

It is clear that Edwin Black knows how to sell books. Does he cite any published work of experts in "War Against the Weak"? I wonder if it is possible to find and directly cite a scholarly source such as a peer-reviewed journal article that describes the pseudoscientific aspects of racist eugenics efforts. --JWSchmidt 02:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I think we have to question if it is right to try to call eugenics a pseudocience ("Eugenics is a pseudoscience") or if Wikipedia should say that in some cases attempts were made to justify eugenics by pseudoscientific means. An article by Daniel Kevles suggested that during the growth of negative eugenics in the United States, economic forces were often more important than was an attempt to justify it by using science. Kevles describes motivatons for forced sterilization as often being, "....not primarily on eugenic grounds (though some hereditarian-minded mental health professionals continued to urge it for that purpose) but on economic ones."

Edwin Black is not very reliable in my mind but there are lots of people who have referred to it as "the pseudoscience of eugenics". But even then I don't think that gets at the heart of it (see my longer response below). The best published piece on the difficulty in defining eugenics and in applying a blanket label to it is the first chapter of Diane Paul's Controlling Human Heredity ("What is Eugenics? Why Does it Matter?"). I recommend using it as a way of trying to think this through ourselves, since the Paul book is one of the most highly cited works on the past and present of eugenics and genetics out there (it is cited and used by historians, bioethicists, geneticists, you name it). --Fastfission 17:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

There are many people who call abortion murder, but the Wikipedia article about abortion does not say "abortion is murder"; the word "murder" is not even in the article. Wikipedia has an article called Abortion debate where the idea that abortion is murder is discussed. I think there are many people who do not have a good understanding of science, pseudoscience or eugenics but they have been indoctrinated into use of the term "pseudoscience" as a defamatory epithet to throw at eugenics. If Wikipedia is going to call eugenics a pseudoscience then I would like to cite a scholarly article that both explains what pseudoscience is and why eugenics should be described as a pseudoscience. --JWSchmidt 19:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I don't think we should lightly throw around the term either, and I don't think it belongs in the intro. --Fastfission 23:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Fastfission that a survey of definitions is important. Galton wrote that we should help the "unfit," but in return "I would exact an equivalent for the charitable assistance they receive; namely, that by means of isolation, or some other drastic yet adequate measure, a stop should be put to the production of families of children likely to include degenerates." He called for marriage regulation and and later braodened his definition: Eugenics is the study of all agencies under social control which can improve or impair the racial quality of future generations." Both cited in Black, whose references are extensive, to address an earlier comment. Jokestress 20:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Black's references are extensive in the sense of copious (he pays little squads of researchers to dig them up for him), but again, he is not a very good historian (Kevles and Paul are far more careful, and less hysterical, and in the end reach more meaningful conclusions, IMO). I think Galton's original views of eugenics are certainly relevant but they aren't necessarily the most useful when it comes to defining it (for reasons the article goes into, the sorts of things "eugenics" came to mean changed in the early 20th century a few times). Eugenics was torn very early on between the question of whether it was the study or the advocacy of social ways to affect heredity (Galton himself ran into this problem early on) and in the end it became mostly concerned with the advocacy (or "propaganda", as it was called by scientists before the word got such a negative meaning through its association with Goebbels). I think all of these different definitions can, and should, be incorporated into the article. --Fastfission 23:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

There are lots of people who refer to eugenics as a pseudoscience, usually meaning either that "mainstream eugenics" (Davenport, etc. 1920s) was definitely pseudoscientific, or that the selection of the traits of an "ideal man" is a pseudoscientific endeavor. But even here it depends on what you are defining eugenics to be — if you argue that prevention of single-mutation genetic diseases is eugenic, as some do, then there isn't much of an argument for it being "pseudoscience", especially if you consider it to be "just" a "social philosophy" (and not a "science of eugenics", as it was once called but now is rarely labeled as such). I don't think the pseudoscience thing needs to necessarily go right in the beginning — whether it is a pseudoscience or not seems controversial enough (or at least definitional enough) that it should be in the criticism section. A lot of whether you define eugenics as a pseudoscience or not depends on whether you deal with it primarily as a historical label—there was a movement called "eugenics" and they did X—or if you consider it an active, meaningful term (i.e. "the Iraq War is not eugenic because X, where eugenics is defined as good for the species, etc."). If it is the latter then one can find ways to consider it just an applied form of genetics, and the debate becomes about whether the goals applied for are "scientific" or not (or if they claim to be scientific or not). If the former, then it is pretty easy to say that the guys in the 1910s-1930s were doing a lot of what would now be called pseudoscience.

I think Osborn's definition is pretty good, personally, despite the fact that he was a (reform) eugenicist. The reason I like the "social philosophy" aspect is that it to me characterizes specifically what makes "eugenics" different than just human genetics—the latter doesn't necessarily say anything about what society is, how it should be arranged, what would be good for it, etc., whereas eugenics does all of those things and tries to use the science in order to bolster or guide its approach to that social outcome.

Again, though, eugenics means different things to different people, so any strict definition will be hard unless we want to be super careful and say "Eugenics is a term that means many different things to many different people." and then launch into multiple definitions. I don't think that's necessary unless people have really severe objections to calling it a "social philosophy". I'm certainly not favorable to eugenics and I think that's a good way to define it, even if it is a self-description from a known eugenicist. Sorry for such a long response. --Fastfission 01:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Eugenics cannot be defined, at its basis, as a pseudoscience. That is not fundamentally, what it is, and that does not explain to a reader what it is. It could be fine to state something about pseudoscience subsequently, with the right sources and reason, but it makes no sense to start off defining even astrology or phrenology as a pseudoscience, and (at least some of) eugenics makes no claims that are as contrary to established science as those.

—Centrx→talk • 04:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this approach. --Fastfission 23:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

So, I assume that we've all agreed that we should put Eugenics as a psuedoscience, akin to psionics, ESP, and remote viewing? Who wants to do the honors? I pick me. I accept. It's been done. Smith Jones 05:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

No. Did you actually read the above discussion? Your change has been reverted. Furthermore, please do not dishonestly misuse the "minor edit" flag in the future. --Delirium 18:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Social Science

Given there's a lot of persistence to categorize eugenics as a pseudo-science I've added the Social Sciences category to the Eugenics category. This way both viewpoints are shown. Keep in mind that millions have died in the pseudo-science known as Economics which has spawned various ideologies such as Capitalism and Communism which have resulted in countless bloody conflicts throughout modern history in which tens of millions have died. Not to mention the pseudo-science known as Education which has caused massive suffering from innocent young children throughout human history which has only recently been reduced to mental suffering in the West.

On a more serious note, I asume some editors might disagree with this categorization so I figured to get a discussion started before editing conflicts arise. --Zero g 16:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Promotion to good article

After having read the article and some of the criticsims above, I have decided to promote this article. Though it is unusual to promote an article with an NPOV tag, my feeling is that the assertions above that the article is pro-eugenics are unfounded. My only ongoing concern is that the Meanings of eugenics lacks sufficient citations and talks about eugenic happenings in very general terms without any reference to when and where they happened. This would normally disqualify the article from good article status but in this case, because specific happenings are discussed in more detail later in the article, this is not a problem.

Cedars 06:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Pseudo-Science

I am going to remove the pseudo-science tag. Whatever viewpoint you take on Eugenics, describing it as a pseudo-science is inaccurate. I would like to take a few moments to describe the reasoning behind this.

According to the article Pseudoscience, something is pseudo-scientific if it claims to be scientific but does not follow the scientific method. The article Scientific method describes this as something which "is based on observable, empirical, measurable evidence, and subject to laws of reasoning."

Take, as a small example, a human breeding experiment. Suppose we take a pool of humans who have some characteristic we believe is desirable - say Blonde Hair, for example. It is possible to use knowledge of genetics combined with a knowledge of the related genes in each of the subjects to predict what the outcome of a breeding experiment would be. If the experiment were to take place, we could then measure the resulting population and compare it with our predictions. So, we can see that evidence can be procured which is observable, empirical and measurable and subject to the laws of reasoning.

So, I hope you can see that calling it a pseudo-science is inaccurate. I take no stance on the desirability of eugenics nor of the questionable ethics of some who have practised it in the past. Instead, I'm merely pointing out that to call it a pseudo-science is inaccurate.

My reasoning for removing this reference from the page is that, since it's overtly inaccurate, it has no place in an encyclopaedia.

Have you bothered to read the above discussions on the topic? --Fastfission 00:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I have bothered to read this but would like to re-open the discussion. It seems to me that the original discussion was not based on hard evidence, so I would like this to be reconsidered.

First of all, I must say that the NPOV rule does not mean that we must strive to include every viewpoint, no matter what the validity. It seems to me the inclusion of comments labelling this as a pseudo-science are inserting a POV slant into an article which should not. All accurate criticisms should be welcome here, but ones which merely aim to slander without thought to their meaning should not.

There are three references in the article to Eugenics being a pseudo-science without a single citation. But I think this needs more than a reference. And I'm not talking just some passing accusation that Eugenics is a pseudo-science. What would be appropriate in this instance is some reference which, making a thoughtful consideration of how Eugenics does *not* meet the criteria of being a science. Anything less is merely slander.

The results of Eugenics experiments are inherently measurable and observable, so have the properties of scientific experiments. If we make changes to the breeding patterns of a certain population, we can use genetics to predict what the outcomes will be. And then, should the experiments be carried out, we can measure the results in the population. Admittedly, our knowledge of genetics is incomplete so eugenics may be home to countless failed experiments. But, since the results of such experiments are inherently reasonable, observable and measurable, they must be considered scientific.

Any accusation that eugenics is a pseudo-science is just that - an accusation based on faulty logic. Eugenics has countless ways in which it can be criticized from any number of viewpoints, almost all of which should have a proper airing in the article. However, when words are dropped without considering the meaning, this detracts from the accuracy of the article which, IMO, could use some help already.

Please discuss.

--80.193.22.182 10:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Evidence for and against the pseudoscience POV

Folks, let's first agree that it is not the job of WP editors to decide whether or not eugenics is pseudoscience. WP does not make that kind of pronouncements. Instead, all we can do is to see if eugenics is routinely/commonly/often/sometimes/seldom/almost never described as pseudoscience, and by whom. I am quite familiar with the positions espoused by The Skeptics Society, which takes as their mission to identify and attack pseudoscience, for example. A good way of testing their POV (which is not always consistent or unanimous) is to examine their writings. That would be an example of the work that we should do here, instead of trying to convince each other whether this POV or that is The Truth. Why not get the ball rolling by assembling some evidence here? Edit and extend this list at will, it should be verifiable. Arbor 18:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• The Mismeasure of Man I think makes the eugenics is pseudoscience claim, but possibly only implicitly. We would need a quote for this.
• The Skeptic Dictionary has no entry for Eugenics.
• Why people believe weird things by Michael Shermer does not mention eugenics—I think. But there is a Pioneer Fund debate that might include something. I honestly can't remember. Why Darwin matters by the same author mentions eugenics on the blurb, but not as a pseudoscience.
• Demon-haunted world has nothing about Eugenics
• Vetenskap och villfarelse (contemporary Swedish publication about pseudoscience) has nothing about Eugenics
• [11] makes the case the the Sceptic Society (and especially Skeptic) is quite OK with eugenics
• [12] Book that says Eugenics is pseudoscience

Eugenics as pseudoscience. I'd cite the Richard Lynn book for sure, and a few other good ones in there. Jokestress 18:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying Lynn's book claims that eugenics is pseudoscience? I am confused. 83.249.217.58 19:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC) (That anon IP was me, accidentally logging out. Arbor 19:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC))

No. He states in the book that many critics label eugenics pseudoscience, which I thought was what was need for verifiability here. Quote's right there on the link. Jokestress 19:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah. Great. So we have good evidence for writing something like "In the 1990s, eugenics was frequently dismissed as pseudoscience". Just was I was looking for. More of the same, please. Arbor 19:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Except that the book he cites does not say that, which is somewhat ironic. Paul does not dismiss eugenics as a pseudoscience; she's actually the best historian out there on the question of why labeling it a pseudoscience is problematic. (I don't know what this says about Lynn's own scholarship—I'm inclined to think he didn't actually read Paul to any degree—but if you look at the page he cites in Paul's book it is very clear that she is not calling eugenics a pseudoscience, but is instead critiqueing those who would quickly dismiss it as a pseudoscience, as well as the usefulness of the term "pseudoscience" in this context). --Fastfission 19:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

There are some critics who label the entire enterprise as a pseudoscience (i.e. Edwin Black). I don't think they're actually the best on the topic though. I much prefer the approach of Diane Paul, who points out that certain types of eugenic practices and beliefs, especially those which were popular in the 1910s-1930s, were pseudoscientific, but that the umbrella term "eugenics" is encompassing enough to not be restricted to only those practices (and she also notes that dismissing it as pseudoscience is not really engaging with any of the key historical, political, or ethical questions). I think the page should say that some have called eugenics a pseudoscience, esp. the "mainline" eugenics of the early 20th century, but that because the definition of eugenics can be so plastic (and it may not even in fact claim to be a "science" in the first place, as it did when it was synonymous with human genetics) that it is hard to make that charge stick for the entire concept. --Fastfission 19:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

What we really need is some authority on pseudoscience to make the claim. Like the Skeptic society (but they don't). The only half-way authority here is Gould, who has written a lot about pseudoscience in the form of creationism. Arbor 20:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The same strategy is being employed on race and intelligence to engage in POV-pushing, where an ever-narrowing field of "experts" are considered the only authority on this topic, or value judgments are made by editors as to who is "best on a topic." Our goal is verifiability not truth. It is abundantly clear that many people have stated that eugenics is pseudoscience, and the article should reflect that. Jokestress 22:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure we disagree. The article should reflect that many people have stated that eugenics is pseudoscience, but it should also reflect (if that's true) that the overwhelming position among those who study pseudoscience is that eugenics is not pseudoscience. Also, compare to the Abortion is murder meme. "Very many people" say so, verifiably. Does that imply we put it in the first paragraph of Abortion? Or mention it in the article at all? Should Abortion reside in category:Murder? I say no. Arbor 07:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Even Gould isn't really an authority on what is or isn't pseudoscience (I'm not sure what such an expert would really look like, in the end—even Karl Popper's determinations have been highly controversial)—he was an anti-Creationist and an anti-racist and while both of those things are good in my book, they don't necessarily make his boundary-work very reliable, though they do make him a source which can be cited. Pseudoscience is not the best defined term in any case, and the really tough part here is that most people believe that certain implementations of eugenics were pseudoscientific but that as a general social philosophy it is broad enough to not be pseudoscientific. Most of the pseudoscientific practices were things like ridiculous data collection methodology (i.e. Goddard's data gathering for pedigree analysis) and other practices of the Eugenics Research Office (which was shut down on the advice of scientists because it was not producing scientifically useful data, but rather just propaganda). While historically important (and worth addressing directly) I'm not sure that mean that any type of eugenics-oriented program is necessarily pseudoscience. Again, I think Paul's book is probably the closest one gets to a really recognized authority—aside from Lynn, who again I doubt has read the book at all, many geneticists, ethicists, and historians refer to Paul's work for addressing questions like "what is eugenics?" and "is eugenics a pseudoscience?" because she handles them very carefully and intelligently. If you have access to her work, I heavily recommend skimming over the relevant sections (it is a very short book). --Fastfission 22:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sure he is in la-la land. However, he is clearly somebody who holds a lot of weight in skeptical circles. MoM is on many skeptical reading lists. I think he betrayed everything that is true and honest and decent by writing that book, but I certainly think he qualifies. (But I can't remember if he says something definite about eugenics. He says stuff about craniometry, but I think he sees eugenics as a political stance, not a (pseudo)science. I may be wrong.) Arbor 07:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I've not read the whole discussion, but here's my two cents anyway. Eugenics is neither science or pseudoscience, but rather a policy, more or less like water fluoridation or death penalty. Selective breeding in the other hand, can be said to be a science (and genetic engineering) , the method involved in this policy (as there are scientific arguments for the other policies as well), but it can never the less be practiced in different degrees of scientific accuracy, each individual claim requiring to be judged by its own. --Extremophile 19:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• In Denying History by Michael Shermer and Alex Grobman, in the page 255, the "science" of eugenics is put between quotation marks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Extremophile (talk • contribs) 20:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

footnote 13

something is broken around about footnote 13. --Rikurzhen 01:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Brave New World

How exactly does eugenics play a role in this novel and where is it 'explored in depth' ? It seems to revolve more around biology and brain washing than genetics. --Zero g 12:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• It's the "biology" aspect you allude to. They specifically bred people for specific tasks in society under a biological and genetic caste system. It's this notion of selective breeding of humans which plays upon the tropes in Eugenics as well as many of the criticisms of it in the 1930s. In any case it is the book most often referred to when people talk about eugenics. --Fastfission 13:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

As far as the book goes the caste system is purely biological, they create castes by poisoning embryos, oxygen starvation, and other non genetic means. Neither can I find any notion of selective breeding, not to mention there's not much to select from when one ovary is used to produce around 11.000 children. Besides, the book states that there's no selection for ovaries since they're donated voluntarily.

Brave New World has as much to do with Eugenics as the Bold and the Beautiful; not a damned thing! It's interesting that the book most often referred to in relation to Eugenics has nothing to do with it, but this shouldn't stop the article from being correct about the actual content of the book. --Zero g 15:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

It should also be noted that eugenics is about 'improving' traits, while Brave new world is mainly about lowering the intelligence of the lower classes and thought control. Unless there are some good arguments, preferably quotes from the book, I'll make the necesairy changes. --Zero g 11:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I think I've come across a better way of talking about it. Brave New World was written as the example of a dystopia which has at its core a very common fear of eugenics—that it would unite biological and social stratification under control of the state. Whether it describes (much less describes "accurately") what an "actual" eugenic state would look like is somewhat immaterial in this light; it is an expression of what has become a quite common fear of what eugenics might mean, and this is one of the reasons it has remained as a common response when talking about any merging of biology and state power. This might a better way to discuss it in the text, one which would preserve its cultural value while not ceding too much as to whether it is or isn't an expression of strict eugenics. --Fastfission 15:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

A change along those lines sounds good to me. --Zero g 15:36, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The highest caste in Brave New World (the alphas) are a result of selective breeding.

My Opinion

First, the criticism section goes way beyond the neutral point of view. The entire Genetic Diversity part should be deleted, it's mostly opinion and there's no references.

Secondly, my argument as to why eugenics is nonsense:

Eugenics has already failed. We've been selectively breeding dogs for specific traits for thousands of years now. Yes, we got the traits we wanted but we learned that thinning the gene pool too much comes at a cost. Certain chronic diseases are now very common in pure bred dogs while mutts are generally much more healthy. I'm a firm believer that mixing the genes as much as possible would lead to a much healtier and happier human race. --Calibas 03:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

There are some references in the dysgenics article that are valid.

Regarding your second argument, not every pure bred dog race suffers from chronic diseases, nor do eugenicists promote the kind of heavy inbreeding practiced by some dog breeders. Inbreeding is actually forbidden by law in the west, which can be seen as an example of eugenic legislation. --Zero g 11:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Most of the article is very well written, it's just the criticism and counterarguments sections that need work. Most of the criticism is pro-eugenics and sounds more than a little bit biased. It's also full of counterarguments which should probably be moved to the counterargument section. --Calibas 05:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Making the criticism section more biased (toward the anti-eugenic argument) while keeping the counterargument section biased, might improve the article. If the genetic diversity section has to go I'd like to rewrite it somewhat to fit it into the counterargument section. I'm also considering writing a section on the race issue for the criticism part, which I think isn't addressed in an intellectually appealing manner as of yet. Though I doubt that the criticism section would out weight the counterarguments section in a neutral article, it should be possible to discredit classic eugenics opposed to liberal eugenics. --Zero g 11:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Some random polls and other data

http://www.cbhd.org/resources/genetics/mitchell_2002-03-07.htm

With the power of genetic technology, a new eugenics has emerged. A 1993 March of Dimes poll found that 11% of parents said they would abort a fetus whose genome was predisposed to obesity. Four out of five would abort a fetus if it would grow up with a disability. Forty-three percent said they would use genetic engineering if available simply to enhance their child's appearance.

Increasingly, college age women are being solicited for their donor eggs on the basis of their desirable genetic traits. In the summer of 2000, the Minnesota Daily, the student newspaper of the University of Minnesota, ran an add for egg donors. Preferred donors were women 5 foot six inches or taller, Caucasian, with high ACT or SAT scores, with no genetic illnesses, and extra compensation was offered to those with mathematical, musical, or athletic abilities. The add stated that acceptable donors would be offered as much as $80,000 for their eggs.

http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/000773.html (matches original source's google cache, article is no longer online)

A survey of Chinese scientists working in the field of genetics suggests they overwhelmingly support eugenics to improve public health. The theory of eugenics - which is considered highly controversial in the West - suggests that the human race can be improved by selective breeding. The survey, which was conducted in 1993 among 255 geneticists throughout China, was reported in the British magazine New Scientist. Almost unanimously - by 91% - the scientists said that couples who carried the same disease-causing genetic mutation should not be allowed to have children.

http://www.eugenics.net/papers/miller1.html

Although the word eugenics is very unpopular among intellectuals, there may not be as much opposition among the ordinary voters.

One Texas legislator in an informal poll found 3,533 to 2,604 in favor of sterilization for welfare moms with 3 or more children. (Reilly, 1991, p.161). The Boston Globe found, in a call in telephone poll, that 49% supported sterilization of the mentally ill.

China has apparently adopted a sterilization law targeting mentally retarded parents in one province (Reilly, 1994, p. 164). While China is politically quite different from the United States, this still shows that such actions may be possible

Singapore has announced eugenic programs aimed at promoting births by the better educated (Chan, 1987), and in particular by graduate women. There was also announced a program to reward low income families under 30 with less than two children for being sterilized with US$4,000 as a down payment for a government low cost apartment.

I'm not sure if the current article properly represents both worldwide and public opinion. --Zero g 18:16, 2 November 2006

Pioneer Fund

I find it interesting that despite mention is discussion, there's no mention of the Pioneer Fund in the actual article.

The Pioneer Fund is listed in the Eugenics directory, for whatever that is worth. --Zero g 10:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Cloning section

Where does the cloning fit into here?

It should be titled about the topic of the actual paragraph. seeing as the paragraph is about the Crown v. James-Edward Whittaker Williams, I don't understand how the "cloning" subsection fits.198.53.227.237 00:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)lyquid_cape

Merge the Dysgenics article with Eugenics?

Some editors are of the opinion that dysgenics should be merged with eugenics. Since there are more editors following this page it's more appropriate to discuss/vote/reach consensus on this page. The other discussion is located here: Talk:Dysgenics#Move_article_to_a_new_section_within_the_article_Eugenics.3F --Zero g 20:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Move Dysgenics to a new section within the article Eugenics? (5,3,0)

Support; I think this would be a great idea...any takers?--MONGO 17:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose, several articles link to dysgenics. Another issue is that dysgenics and eugenics aren't the same thing and there are sufficient sources to warrant its own article. --Zero g 19:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Support; I think it's probably a good idea. I notice that Neel in the Human Heredity article defines dysgenics as the opposite of eugenics. [13] Neel defines the third possibility, "isogenics", as changes that leave "the quality of that gene pool unchanged". Isogenics does not have its own article, so I'm not sure why dysgenics should. More people edit Eugenics than Dysgenics; the quality of article content on Wikipedia improves with the number of editors. On the other hand, Eugenics is 68 kB, longer than recommended by WP:SIZE, and incorporating Dysgenics and Isogenics would make it longer. But, it might make sense to create a new article "History of eugenics" before too long. That would move some of the less controversial content out of the main article and shorten it. That has already been done for Evolution.--Walter Siegmund (talk) 01:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Isogenics has only 12K google hits of which most are related to some weight loss program. Also using your reasoning, your recent attempts to strip Wikipedia bare from the mention of dysgenics would in theory have resulted in less editors finding this article, which subsequently would have damaged the future quality of this article.

Also compared with the countless articles on Wikipedia with a much lesser significance I don't quite understand your reasoning.

Finally, why do you consider splitting up the eugenics article, yet find it logical to merge in the case of dysgenics? That doesn't make sense at all. --Zero g 01:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

If we were to merge this article into Eugenics, then we could make it a redirect page, so anyone who might search dysgenics would still see all the same info for the most part, but in the Eugenics article instead.--MONGO 10:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Support. I tend to be rather sympathetic to the idea of merge-and-redirect of this article into eugenics; clearly, the term "dysgenics" has the limited use it does almost exclusively among eugenicists, and in direct reference to the better known term. LotLE×talk 18:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC) (aside from the apparent effort to be inflamatory with a strange analogy about white people/racism, I haven't seen any arguments against merger)

You ought to provide a source when making statements of that order. In my opinion statements like that are as biased as saying that only white people can be racist. Also, the argument for a merger should be discussed on the eugenics talk page instead, besides that many of my arguments against a merger remained unanswered. --Zero g 19:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion was copied from Talk:Dysgenics#Move_article_to_a_new_section_within_the_article_Eugenics.3F --Walter Siegmund (talk) 21:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd still like to see some decent answers to my arguments against this merge:

1. Why merge if there are countless articles of lesser significance and size? What makes dysgenics special?
2. Why merge if the eugenics article is already much bigger than the optimal size?
3. Why consider splitting up the historical section of the eugenics article to deal with issue 2. yet find it logical to merge in the case of dysgenics?
4. How is it warranted to merge an article which has around a dozen links? --Zero g 23:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose They're two entirely different subjects. I don't understand what the point would be in merging them. --Calibas 18:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Support. Dysgenics is an integral aspect of eugenics, not a separate subject. It would be better to split off topics like the history while adding core concepts like dysgenics. -Will Beback · † · 21:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Any source that backs up that dysgenics is an integral aspect of eugenics? Until I added a section on dysgenics in this article some months ago it wasn't mentioned at all! It's beyond doubt that dysgenics can exist regardless of eugenics policies being existent or not, which makes this a highly disputable argument. --Zero g 21:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/eugenics_and_dysgenics/], [22], [23], etc. -Will Beback · † · 23:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Non of your links explain why dysgenics is an integral part of eugenics.

While you have 2 links (3 if you include the copied quote), stating that dysgenics is the reverse, being the reverse doesn't qualify, otherwise the racism and anti-racism article should be merged as well.

When googling for "dysgenics program" I get 11 hits, most of them being from message boards and web published articles. If your first link had any validity you'd expect there would be more results.

So I repeat my question, can you produce any source that backs up that dysgenics is an integral aspect of eugenics? If not it's either POV or OR. --Zero g 00:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I've produced a boatload of sources that treat the terms as complements. Do you have any sources which indicate they are separate, unrelated concepts? -Will Beback · † · 04:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

You've produced a boatload of sources that do not backup your claim that dysgenics is an integral part of eugenics. The burden of the proof is on you in this case. Not to mention that 'dysgenic' has 86.1K google hits, and 'dysgenic -eugenic' 70.5K hits. In comparison, 'cranium' has 3.1M google hits, and 'cranium -brain' has 1.3M hits. If it was such an integral part one would expect a stronger correlation, not to mention that both brain and cranium have their own articles on Wikipedia. --Zero g 10:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they're complements and related but they're entirely seperate ideas. Just because eugenics spawned the idea of dygenics doesn't mean they should grouped together. Yes, the eugenics page should metion dygenics but they should be seperate articles. A person can fully understand the idea of dygenics without any knowledge of eugenics. Plus if the theory of dysgenics is true, the effect has been going on for a long time, perhaps longer than the idea of eugenics. --Calibas 00:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

If we read the first line of the dysgenics article it's obvious these don't belong together. It states:

"Dysgenics is a term applied by some researchers to describe the hypothetical evolutionary weakening of a population of organisms relative to their environment, often due to relaxation of natural selection or the occurrence of negative selection.". Eugenics is "a social philosophy which advocates the improvement of human hereditary traits through various forms of intervention.". While the idea of dysgenics may support eugenics, they're two entirely different theories. Dysgenics deals with any organism while eugenics is only humans. --Calibas 22:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. One is a hypothetical mechanism occurring naturally, to all species, one is a social-political movement with a specific human (political) purpose. Stick a link to dysgenics in the 'see also' section and leave it at that, I'd say. This suggestion I suspect is just due to the fact that eugenics and dysgenics sound like antonyms, when in fact they aren't that closely related. It would make more sense to merge in the article on Degeneration, which was a concern to which the eugenicists reacted (I'd oppose that, as well, though.) Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 13:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Support. The two articles have enough in common, and Dysgenics indeed is a sub-article of Eugenics, as also stated in the first sentence of History of the term, where it says "The term first came into use as an opposite of eugenics" Besides, there are articles much longer than this one, and they actually are featured, so I don't see a reason why the "History" section should be split, I think Eugenics and Dysgenics are similar enough to share one article. Zero g - I see your point about links but I think the article can be redirected into the Dysgenics section just as easily... JaneDOA 11:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Closed discussion with a result of majority support but no consensus for the merge proposal. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Dor Yeshorim

Some discussion of Dor Yeshorim has occurred via edit summaries. The discussion of its impact on gene frequency is probably best handled on its talk page. However, that article is correct as written, I think, and I've copied that content (edited) into this one.

1. In the absence of a reduced rate of reproduction of carriers, gene frequency is unaffected.
2. Reduced fertility of couples wherein both partners are carriers would decrease the frequency of the gene, but this is not the purpose of Dor Yeshorim. Abortion of homozygous fetuses is irrelevant; these would not reproduce if brought to term.
3. The section is a little long for a summary.

--Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

1. "phenotypical eugenics" is a made up term that should be removed. Liberal eugenics is the closest match.

2. In the absence of information about it's impact on carrier genes exactly that should be stated. --Zero g 18:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

"Dor Yeshorim" is more properly transliterated "Dor Yesharim" as it comes from the root "yashar", meaning "straight", "righteous", "correct" and other such meanings. Should we consider changing the section heading on it? -- Dreamer

One-child policy

How does the one-child policy affect human heredity? I see references that associate the policy with eugenics, but nothing says how this has any effect on genetics. --Calibas 19:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The dysgenics article sheds some light on this. Basically put the one child policy slows dysgenics (in theory) making it arguably eugenic. But often social policies involved with reproduction are labeled eugenic, regardless if they're eugenic or not. --Zero g 20:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

How does it slow dysgenics? If anything the best way to slow dysgenics, if it is a real threat, is to either have differential reproduction, with the more 'fit' individuals having more children, or the same but through insemination, so that non 'fit' couples can still have children but not their own. If only one child is produced per couple there is no selection and natural dysgenics (the same applies for two, of course), but having one child per couple isn't anymore sustainable in the long term than our current world population growth, so it has greater concerns than dysgenics. Having said that, the One child policy is really more a 'guideline' and only a temporary one; I imagine the Government of the People's Republic of China is just trying to maximize its economic prospects by controlling population. Richard001 02:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

In principle the one child policy is not eugenic, since it is primarily concerned with controlling the overall population size rather than with the quality of the children produced. Rodparkes 07:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Human only?

Is eugenics related only to human heredity? Was this alway the understanding? Critics argue that dog shows are drivin by eugenic thinking. Is this a misuse of the word?--Counsel 21:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

It almost always refers to humans according to the definitions on the web. [24] Walter Siegmund (talk) 02:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Eugenics was developed as the application to humans the techniques of breeding animals. So to talk about non-human eugenics somewhat misses the point. --Fastfission 04:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

BIAS

"Ideological social determinists, some of which have obtained college degrees in fields relevant to eugenics, often describe eugenics as a pseudoscience."

Eugenics is not a science, it is not a pseudoscience, it is politics. If I killed a stupid person, is that science or pseudoscience?

I know eugenics is getting popular these days among smug amoral white twerps, but please, some some objectivity is needed. It isn't a science. It does not pretend to be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.20.185.217 (talk • contribs)

Eugenicists have most certainly used the trappings of science in the past. Whether or not they try to now is perhaps a different matter. I agree with the implicit idea that more citations are needed in regards to this, so I will find some. Deleuze 06:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Eugenics is an idealistic and arguably Utopian set of concepts typically encapsulated in trite 'truisms' that rarely provide real information about what eugenics actually is. It can be social policy, for government officials as well as other political units, large and small. It is ultimately subjective, in that it relies on what a person, or group of people, believe to be 'ideal' rather than scientifically quantifiable rules setting out what is desirable; everyone had different ideas about what is desirable for humans.

Saying that eugenics is, in itself, a science, or pseudoscience for that matter, is ludicrous. Doing so would be akin to stating that socialism, capitalism, Utopianism, or any of thousands of other -isms is 'a science'.

Clear? Good. Thanks for reading. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.22.22.101 (talk) 13:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC).

Raymond Cattell reference

Why was this removed?

Raymond Cattell, the author of The 500 publications in psychology, wrote a book called Beyondism in 1987, in which Economic incentives such as tax relief or cash payments be used to encourage the poor to use a yet-to-be-invented anti-aphrodisiac, and encourage the socially successful to have large families"

The reason for removal says it's unsourced and not a reliable source. The man is a prominent psychologist, I think he's a reliable source. As to the unsourced part, it says the book Beyondism is the source. --Calibas 21:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

It never hurts to have a source. -Will Beback · † · 06:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I add Cattell's opinion with a source.

MoritzB 22:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)