RPSG Lecture 15 Dec 2021 - Eugenics: A Dark History and Troubling Present Dr Adam Rutherford

Eugenics is a set of beliefs and practices that aim to improve the genetic quality of a human population, historically by excluding people and groups judged to be inferior or promoting those judged to be superior. In recent years, the term has seen a revival in bioethical discussions on the usage of new technologies such genetic screening, with a heated debate on whether such technologies should be called eugenics or not.

Adam Rutherford is an Honorary Fellow at UCL, where he teaches the history of eugenics, race science, genetics, and science communication. He has written extensively on Darwin, the development of evolutionary theory, the Modern Synthesis, synthetic biology and genetic engineering, behavioural ecology, gene-culture co-evolution, human evolution, and ancient DNA. His most recent work concerns the relationship between science, eugenics and race.

[sashadence]

idea only raised at the end of the talk but which is, of course, relevant for today is, whether eugenics, per se, is the 'evil' or a) the fact that it was almost immediately co-opted to, as was said, eradicate 'people you didn't like' or b) that eugenics went so immorally nutty because the nascent science of genetics was not sufficiently understood. So the question then is if you can get rid of morally and scientifically crazy notions, theories and mistaken assumptions, the core idea of intervening in 'nature' to minimise the suffering from genetic disease might not be possible or even good. That, though, seems to me, means trying to understand a LOT more fully why it went batty in the first place and not falling into the belief that because we know why they went there, we won't go, albeit in a much more culturally and scientifically sophisticated way, to a similar place, or a very different place but which future generations might see as equally demented. Obviously the first eugenicists did not believe they were involved in something inherently evil -- as primitive as their thinking was by contemporary standards both scientifically and philosophically, they didn't know it was. Final question of course, therefore, is *are* we just animals? Or do we think we are 'just' animals? This is, of course, not a scientific question or one that scientists generally entertain. It's taken as an assumption -- just not sure, although obviously very uneducated scientifically, that it is true.

[BALLzDeep]

Nature and nurture In conflict or in concert is really subjective.
Nature vs nurture does seem competitive like all life but you could say it’s in concert because it’s constantly in conflict🤔

[sashadence]

Of course remembering that when Tom Buchanan makes his racist remark about how the white races must "keep them down" he's being lampooned by Fitzgerald. Daisy's remark is meant to be ironic because she's expressing contempt or at least sarcasm for her husband's bombast. The Buchanans are the villains of the story and the 'poor man', Wilson, is their victim whom they basically frame to get rid of the threat Gatsby introduces as a self-made man, that is, someone for whom poor origins are trumped by personal effort and will, both, in his case, used to gain the love of Daisy, born wealthy, who in no way deserves him. Owl Eyes refers to Gatsby as a "genius". The book is a satire of eugenics.

[digitalforensicsglobalsolu]

Eugenics is alive and well in America. I am developing hydrocephalus and my life isn't worth saving according to the US Government who have used direct energy weapons on me while draining my bank account. As a successful business woman I am simply appalled

[digitalforensicsglobalsolu]

PS. My grandfather was a Scottish Rite 😁