Talk:Eugenics
Crimeney, you've got it all wrong again...I'll try to clean up the science part without disturbing your point, if you dont mind.PalMD 00:36, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
Ok, Dawkin's letter shows NO approval for eugenics, just the opposite. Careful with the quote mining. Im not saying that no one in the world is a eugenecist, but chose the right ones. Singer is interesting...he makes ethical arguments about the sanctity of life, and creats a spectrum of sanctity. His ideas can be offensive, but he clearly states that killing is bad, just some killing is bad in different ways. He does not, as far as I can tell, speak of eugenics at all. You might consider leaving him out and finding a better example.PalMD 00:59, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
- I'd like to add what Crichton said about eugenics - which was censored from a Wikipedia article on the grounds of "Who's he? What does he know? He's only a novelist!" (paraphrased, obviously) --Ed Poor 14:02, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
I'd like to see what he had to say. It might be interesting.--PalMDtalk 14:18, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
- Well, first read what he had to say at talk:Politicized Science. It's rather shocking. --Ed Poor 15:05, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
I'd have to say that Eugenics, in the original 19th and 20th state, is pretty much gone. The modern war over eugenics will come in the fertility industry, selecting embryos with certain characteristics. This isn't, strictly speaking, eugenics, as eugenics was based on the scientifically invalid idea that you can breed certain characteristics in or out of the human population. This turned out to be way too simplistic (in addition to being evil). Feel free to contact me to discuss it more.--PalMDtalk 15:11, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
