- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
I haven’t yet read Chan’s book, but I would recommend also reading Aubrey Clayton’s Bernoulli’s Fallacy—which catalogs how the principle founders of eugenics were also the founders of modern statistical methodology, and how they distorted the latter to justify their beliefs.
Reported as “not politics” and while I can see that argument, what they’re talking about here has immense political ramifications, going back to Reagan’s racist “welfare queen”.
The title claims that eugenics is thriving in tech, but then the only examples it has of that are two individuals, Elon Musk and Peter Thiel. Even against just these two individuals, the accusations are vague and don’t include anything these individuals actually did as opposed to just said (or rather what they are claimed to have said). Then for some reason an opposition to DEI is given as an example of support for eugenics. Most of the words in the article are spent talking about the eugenics movement of a hundred years ago rather than anything happening today.
Musk and Thiel are very wealthy and influential, but they aren’t “tech”. This article is paranoia and click-bait.
Musk and thiel, two of the worlds richest men who exclusively made their wealth in tech companies, aren’t tech related?
There are about 9,600,000 people in the US tech industry and this article never even mentions 9,599,998 of them. Even if Musk and Thiel support eugenics (and that’s if) they’re just talking about it as individuals, not as people who run tech companies associated with eugenics in any way. Musk is an immigrant and Thiel is gay, so you might as well say that eugenics is thriving in the immigrant community and the gay community.
Musky has his grubby hands in so many areas of tech that his individual views are no longer individual. He’s a major player in the space scene right now. His exploding cars are so invasive that some people I know refer to any EV as a ‘tesla’. He also has his hand so far up Trumps arsehole that he can tickle his tonsils from behind. I think it might be important to know if this guy has dangerous views on eugenics.
Not to mention his following, however shallow, is MASSIVE in the tech sphere, especially among leadership roles. A lot of less informed people automatically lend him at least some amount of credence because he’s wealthy, and we’ve been told that wealth is success.
Wouldn’t that be like calling Lee Walton a grocer?
It’s not an investigative article—it’s a discussion with an author teasing one aspect of her book. I assume the title was meant more as a description of the book than as a claim they were trying to fully substantiate within this particular discussion about the book.
Mother Jones has about as much journalistic integrity as Salon… aka there is none
This is the kind of comment you have to reply to if you downvote
Mine, not so much, but would be nice to know why four people so far have hit the disagree button
I thought downvotes were gone, but apparently it is just me 😐 This article is problematic.
It might be your instance. I know the IKEA shark instance disabled downvotes so if I browse 196, for example, I only see downvotes from other users on my own instance.
Because being rational and reading the article ruins the rage bait
Maybe a lack of capability for nuance?:
Elon runs a nazi bar… someone’s saying Elon isn’t a eugenicist… Nazis are bad and so are eugenicists… if Elon is bad then why say Elon is not <any kind of bad thing>? down vote!
Please please please forgive my ignorance
Looking at the basic definition of eugenics makes it seem like the sci-fi concept of editing a fetus to not have diseases. Is there something ethically wrong with that?
I know eugenics is based in nazi shit and “selective breeding” (which I’m vehemently against), but people get angry at the term, so I’m assuming we’re nowhere nere the sci-fi stuff(?)
Eugenics is a very real and racist policy.
Ethiopian women in Israel ‘given contraceptive without consent’
It’s historically been applied at the level of societies rather than individuals, and targeted at common traits seen as undesirable rather than at specific genetic defects. And it tends to be based on misconceptions about evolution—e.g., that an ideal population is one in which all members’ genotypes approach some hypothetical optimum, and any genetic diversity within a population is deleterious.
I see! That makes perfect sense! Thank you
Eugenics is basically selective breeding applied to humans to weed out undesirable traits like diseases or disabilities.
It sounds okay on paper but as history showed us, it is, more often than not, used to justify heinous shit. Especially when you leave it to humans to define “undesirable traits”.
Nazis used it, but so did America, Japan, China, France and many many more.
And now, imagine tech bros from the Valley wanting to engineer the genome and deliver the “perfect” baby to some rich fucks. We’re obviously not there yet, but it’s only a matter of time if we let them.Racists like Musk love it because it’s a way to reduce “unwanted” populations without saying it outright
Good, we’re way behind schedule. The Eugenics Wars were supposed to happen back in the 90s!
