Talk:New eugenics/Archive 1

message: I added a few paragraphs here to stress the point that the linguistic attempt to label 20th-century eugenics programs as distinctly "conservative" (and to say that this, being "liberal", is a strong contrast), is historically misleading. Eugenics was embraced by many parts of the early 20th-century political spectrum and to say it was strictly "conservative" is wholly incorrect (there were left-wing, socialist eugenicists as well, such as Hermann Muller). It's additionally incorrect to say that "liberal eugenics", as defined, was not practiced in the early-20th century. The US and Germany both had programs and attempts to enact forms of "positive" eugenics, though they get less attention than the coercive forms of eugenics ("negative" eugenics). I just wanted to make it clear that this is a purposeful attempt at historical distancing, one which is fairly difficult to maintain, historically speaking. (This does not mean that it is necessarily "bad" or "evil" or "wrong", etc., though, but to try and disassociate it with the past is incorrect.) Also, I delinked the book because we don't need to tell people where to buy their book, and they can search amazon just like the rest of us. --Fastfission 15:44, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The mention of "conservative" eugenics was a mistake I made, while working to expand this article, which led Fasfission to go off on an interesting but pointless tangent to contradict it. As far as I know, no where will anyone find the mention of such a term in literature discussing "liberal" eugenics. The scientifically and historically correct contrast is between the possible liberal eugenics of the 21st century and the "authoritarian", "totalitarian", "fascist", or "nazi" eugenics of the 20th century. Loremaster 18:35, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: That's all OK, but all that was well-explained in the paragraphs that you deleted. Most eugenics in the old days was liberal by your definition, as Fastfission pointed out. I am going to replace the paragraphs and rewrite them to change conservative to authoritarian, per your discussion here. Otherwise someone readoing the article would not get an accurate picture of the contrast. -Willmcw 21:26, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Conservative eugenics?

message: I object strongly to the word "liberal" as it has been applied as a modifier to "Eugenics".  This terminology does not exist outside the context of Wikipedia, and with good reason.  The only appropriate response by Wikipedia would be to allow articles with similar labels: "Conservative Nazism", "Conservative Speak", "Conservative Dogmatic Religious Claptrap" & etc. --Danshawen
:Danshawen, have you taken the time to google the term "liberal eugenics"? The term is used by some of the most influential thinkers of our times (not that all the authors of the texts linked to below are necessarily among them)!
:#Nicholas Agar - Liberal Eugenics: In Defence of Human Enhancement
:#Jürgen Habermas, On the way to liberal eugenics?
:#State-sponsored Liberal Eugenics Has Just Begun
:#Women's Bioethics Blog: Johann Hari: Why I support liberal eugenics
:#Relief and Shadow of New Liberal Eugenics
:Etc, etc, etc. --Loremaster 19:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: danshawen, I think you may be conjuring the spectre of american political dualism where it isn't due.  The term liberal eugenics is counterposed to authoriarian eugenics, which is to say, the popular conception of negative eugenics.  Republican & Democrat arn't issues on the table here.  As to the term not exsisting outside of Wikipedia, I can say that you are patently mistaken, as I came upon this article through the aforementioned Agar book, Liberal Eugenics: In Defence of Human Enhancement.  --mordicai. 02:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Danshawen's fanaticism seems to be clouding his or her judgement. --Loremaster 04:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Liberal?