this post was submitted on 08 Jul 2024
779 points (91.5% liked)
Microblog Memes
5575 readers
2934 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
So? Darwin came before the discovery of genes. My whole point is that you don't need to talk about genes in order to talk about eugenics.
Sure, however there are traits passed down through generations that don't utilize genes. As an example, let's look at intergenerational wealth. Is that a form of eugenics? I would argue no - there are no biological traits being selected for, which afaik is the scope of eugenics. Instead I would propose that these are inherited environmental traits, which are more in the scope of public policy.
Let's then talk about intelligence. AFAIK, intelligence is a mixture of nature and nurture - genes and environmental impacts. What this means is when you claim the movie is about eugenics, you are choosing to ignore the environmental aspect, and instead focusing on the genetic aspect of intelligence. If we bring this back to inherited social traits, it is just as likely that it is the inherited environmental traits that resulted in the dumbing down depicted in the movie. The dumb example fella did not prioritize education, so why would his offspring?
You see: I believe that even your nuanced take on intelligence is selling the whole thing short. Intelligence is something that seems intuitive but actually isn't very well understood (but sadly: quite often used as justification for discrimination).
So, I don't believe any of those things about inheritabiliy of intelligence. Yet, the basic premise of the movie relies a lot on inheritability of intelligence. I'm saying that the whole setup of the movie is a thought experiment, based on eugenic principles.
I don't think that eugenics relies on genes, btw. Eugenicists actually always took an effort to ignore socio-economical issues. The core narrative of (negative) eugenics is "if the wrong people reproduce too much, we have a problem". The justification, be it genes, nature, or nurture, comes afterwards.
Reproduce, meaning procreate/have kids?
This clarification matters because if it's just about giving birth to kids, it fundamentally is about genes. The justification is whatever quality the eugenicist is hoping to encourage. The underlying mechanism, once again, is genes.
Here's a question that might further the discussion. Is it considered eugenics to control who gets to adopt babies? If it's not eugenics, then why does choosing who can have babies through procreation fall under the umbrella of eugenics? What's the difference between these scenarios?
It would be very helpful if you could share a source that discusses eugenics in the absence of passing on biologically inherited traits. The vast majority of definitions that I've seen focuses on this supposed passing on of biological inheritance of traits.
Yes, have kids.
But the mechanics don't matter, since eugenics don't rely on genes. Taking away the children of native American parents, since those were deemed "unfit to raise them properly" was once eugenicist practices. Eugenics doesn't rely on genetics at all.
It doesn't matter if the justification is "genes", or "capabilities of raising children", or cosmic radiation or whatever.
Kind of? That one's a grey area and it depends on e.g. motivation. Can gay people not adopt children? I'd say that reeks of eugenics. Can a household that clearly can't care for the well-being of a child not adopt? I'd argue that's not eugenistic.
Can you share a source that discusses eugenics without the context of biologically inherited traits? I did a search for "eugenics native American children" and all of the hits discuss forced sterilization, which reinforces my belief that mechanics do matter because eugenics does rely on genes.
When discussing taking away the children of native Americans, I believe that falls under genocide, instead of eugenics. Also bad, but different bad.
To get the conversation started, here's the definition of eugenics provided by a few common sources:
Not everything inheritaple is based on genes. If two people who love playing the violin get children,I'll guaranteeyou that their offspring will know one thing or two about violins.
Culture can be inherited, too. Which is mainly why first nation people were sterilized: to effectively genocide their culture.
I don't think that definitionss help too much with these kinds of discussion, since they ignore the historical context of a historical phenomenon.
We're in agreement on that - I was stating earlier that there are social aspects that can be "inherited", for example, the nurture segment of intelligence.
However at the end of the day, every definition I've seen for eugenics focuses on the biological inherited traits, and none mention these socially/culturally inherited ones. Intelligence is impacted by both biologically inherited traits as well as socially inherited traits, which is why I'm proposing that eugenics, which I've not seen defined to cover socially inherited traits, is only a potential driver. In the absence of the movie explicitly calling out the lack of an "intelligence gene", failing social nets not preventing socially/culturally inherited stupidity is an equally valid reason.
You're simply going to ignore the historical context, are you?
I've asked multiple times for sources discussing eugenics outside of the scope of biologically inherited traits.
If the historical context you're describing does not fall under that request, it's not relevant because we'd circle back around to eugenics necessitating biologically inherited traits. If the historical context you're describing does fall under that request, I'm all ears.
Similar to how I understand your example of taking away native American children to fall under genocide and not eugenics, I suspect there's a misunderstanding in the definition of eugenics.
Haven't you already given examples with sterilization of indigenous people?
Race "science" was always an excuse for racism. First racism, then race. Notthe other way around.
You can genocide people through eugenics (culturally repressive control of reproduction).
Sterilization is 100% in the realm of biologically inherited traits, as it prevents the passing on of genes, so no, that is not what I'm asking for.
You can genocide people through eugenics, true, but taking kids away is genocide without eugenics as defined by all authoritative sources that I've seen, none of which have been contested.
I'll ask for a 4th(?) time, are you able to share sources that discuss eugenics outside of the scope of biologically inherited traits?
If not, then my take away is that you have a personal definition of eugenics that is not shared by society, and your opinions about the role of eugenics in this movie should be considered appropriately.
Even if that was the case (I don't think it is), you're talking about our current understanding of biology. Scientists used to think that having a low IQ is a mental illness ("feeble-mindedness"), or that promiscuity is inheritable.
Here's an example of what you asked for. I think it fits the premise of Idiocracy a lot.
..... sterilization would prevent the passing of genes by that individual by mechanism of no longer having kids. Biologically inherited traits are, by definition, determined by genes. These are facts. You can try to hand waive this away and say "who knows our current understanding of this may change in the future", but that then leaves us with "our current understanding of science informs us that your source did not discuss eugenics outside of the scope of biologically inherited traits"
That legal case is once again, about sterilization, which is eugenics by way of preventing traits from being inherited biologically. I'm beginning to think you don't understand what I mean when I ask for a source discussing eugenics outside the scope of biologically inherited traits.
Do you remember how you brought go that if two parents play violin, their kid probably will too? Would it be eugenics to prevent that kid from playing violin? Unless you believe coco to be a movie about the perils of eugenics, the answer should be no. Substitute passing down "a love for playing violin" with "not prioritizing education" and that explains Idiocracy, without eugenics.
You are choosing to explain the outcome of Idiocracy with eugenics and you're choosing to ignore equally valid alternatives.
That's not what I'm saying. I was talking about the historical context. And again: the movie implies heavily that stupidity is inheritable, just like the historical example. Be it via nature or nurture.
Yeah. My original point was that Idiocracy is an eugencist movie by implying that stupidity is inherited. I don't believe that is the case, but the movie argues for it. Stop moving the goalposts.
Every definition of eugenics that I've seen only discusses inheriting by nature. You have yet to provide a definition that explicitly captures inheriting by nurture as well. The movie does discuss inheritance of stupidity, but is ambiguous about it being nature or nurture. Therefore, the so far uncontested societal definition of eugenics, which focuses just on nature, is only one way to look at how stupidity was inherited. There is the equally valid lens of looking at it through the inheritance of stupidity via nurture.
Choosing to claim that this is movie about eugenics necessitates you either ignoring that stupidity can be inherited via nurture (via deprioritizing of education, etc ), or by applying your own definition of eugenics in order to also include nurture. A definition that you have thusfar been unable to provide authoritative sources agreeing with you on, and that disagrees with the societal definition.
I refuse to believe thatstupidity is a thing, let alone can be inherited via nature or nurture!
So, you're just ignoring the historical context of eugenics... Cool /s
I'm not a big fan of appealing to authority.
Edit:
you haven't read the article, have you?
Apologies, I was using "stupidity" as shorthand for "lack of intelligence". Are we in agreement that intelligence is inherited as a mixture of nature and nurture? What I say next does depend on agreement here.
So remember when you said
Let's say Priddy sterilized someone, they met a partner who also loved playing violin, and they adopted a kid. The sterilization would do nothing to prevent the kid from knowing a thing or two about the violin. Do we agree? Do you see what I mean about sterilization not preventing the inheritance of non-biological traits?
Now swap out "love for the violin" with "deprioritizing education", and you have the seeds for Idiocracy. This works with or without involving eugenics, so you're choosing to look at the movie through the lens of eugenics.
What do you mean by intelligence? General intelligence has never been scientifically proven to exist. So in that sense: I don't believe in intelligence, either.
Apart from the morbidity of you using that historical example as a juming off point for a thought experiment: That's assuming that the law would have allowed for the sterilized person to adopt someone. It certainly wouldn't have.
That's a hell of a bomb to drop when we're waist deep in the discussion, and quite frankly not a can of worms I have the time to open, so I'm just going to peace out. Thank you for the civil discussion, have a good day!
How often did I say that this is not about real life, but the internal logic of the movie?