This may well be one of my lengthiest contributions, so hopefully it will not "scare off" before the important points are understood. Please bear with me; I believe in this. Imagine there is a new scientific theory that warns of an impending crisis, and points to a way out. This theory quickly draws support from leading scientists, politicians, and celebrities of all kinds around the world. Research is funded by distinguished philanthropies, and carried out at prestigious universities. The coming crisis is reported on frequently in the media, and is taught in college and high school classrooms. Global Warming? NO! This one rose to prominence a century ago. It's supporters included Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson , and Winston Churchill; the Supreme Court ruled in it's favor. Famous names supporting it: Alexander Graham Bell, activist Margaret Sanger, Luther Burbank, founder of Stanford University Leland Stanford, H. G. Wells, George Bernard Shaw, and hundreds of others. Research was backed by the Carnegie and Rockefeller Foundations. Cold Springs Harbor Institute was built to carry out important theory work, which was also done at Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, and Johns Hopkins. Legislation to address the crisis was passed in states from New York to California. The efforts had the support of the National Academy of Sciences, the American Medical Association, and the National Research Council. This work, molding public opinion, went on for almost 50 years. Opposing the theory meant being shouted down, called reactionary, blind to reality, or just plain ignorant. Surprisingly, very few folks adamantly opposed it. We know now this crisis was based on pseudoscience. The crisis was nonexistent. The theory was morally and criminally wrong. Ultimately, it led to the deaths of millions of people. The theory postulated a crisis of the gene pool, even before Genes were known to exist, which would eventually lead to the deterioration of the human race. It stated that the "best humans" were populating far less quickly than the inferior ones: foreigners, immigrants, Jews, degenerates, the "unfit", and the "feeble-minded". The miscreants were widely regarded as causing a "rising tide of imbeciles", who were polluting the human race. Among many other approaches, 29 states, including California, passed laws legalizing forced sterilization of all those adjudged "unfit". CA led the country in numbers of sterilizations. The Rockefeller Foundation was so enthusiastic, given it's generous funding of German researchers, that the work to further use of the theory in Germany involved the gassing of individuals held in mental institutions. Admirably progressive, the Germans set up ordinary-looking houses where "mental defectives" were brought and interviewed individually, then led to a back-room area which was, in fact, a gas chamber. There, carbon monoxide gas was used, the bodies disposed of in a crematorium located on the property. Eventually, the program was expanded into a vast network of concentration camps located near railroad lines, enabling the efficient transport and killing of about ten million "undesirables". The theory was entitled Eugenics. By the end of WW-II, it ceased to be a subject found in college classrooms. Three most important points about Eugenics stand out. Despite Cold Springs Harbor Laboratory, efforts at universities, pleadings of lawyers in favor, there was NO scientific basis for Eugenics. "Feeble-mindedness" could mean anything from poverty and illiteracy to epilepsy; there was no clear definition of "degenerate" or "unfit". Second, Eugenics was in reality a social program being foisted as a scientific one. What drove it was concern about immigration and racism and undesirable people populating one's neighborhood or country. Third, most distressing, the scientific establishment in both the U.S. and Germany did not mount any sustained protest. German scientists adjusted their research interests to the new policies. Those few who did not, disappeared. There is a second vivid example of "politicized science" which led to similar disastrous results. It involved a movement to institute a radically-new means of increasing food crop production, and ultimately caused the deaths of millions through starvation. Thanks for staying this long. Frank
@Billie Lane @Yvonne Smith My OP has a reason behind it, as there is always method to my madness! The reason will await the description of just one more serious coagulation of governmental policy and scientific belief resulting in widespread catastrophe among human beings. Quite different from Eugenics, but nonetheless proving the hazards of government ideology controlling the work of science, and of media promoting false concepts to an unsuspecting and gullible public, a shrewd but ruthless Russian peasant in the first part of the 20th. Century, Trofim Lysenko, claimed to have "solved the problem of fertilizing crops without fertilizers and minerals". In 1928, he claimed to have developed a procedure called vernalization, by which seeds were moistened and chilled to enhance the later growth of crops. His methods were never put to any rigorous test, nor were they proven. Josef Stalin was drawn to the concept, imagining a future unbounded by hereditary constraints; he wanted improved agricultural production. Lysenko promised both, becoming the darling of a Soviet media forever on the lookout for stories about clever peasants who had developed revolutionary procedures. Portrayed as a genius, Lysenko used the celebrity status to his maximum advantage, while skillfully denouncing his opponents. Carried on a wave of state-sponsored enthusiasm, he rose so rapidly in popularity as to become a member of the Supreme Soviet by 1937. By then, his theories dominated Russian biology, obliterating proven scientific methods. The result was famines that killed millions through starvation, and purges to prove the point sent hundreds of dissenting Soviet scientists to the gulags or firing squads. Government simply will not "lose face", no matter the cost. Lysenko's theories were finally banned by 1948, there never was any basis for his ideas, yet he controlled Soviet research for 30 years. Today, Russian biology still has not fully recovered from that era. I shall complete this, meanwhile hoping for comment. Frank
A difficult thread. Difficult because although the specifics of geneology was unknown until recent years, eugenics has been practiced for thousands of years. Before the exile of the Jewish population to Babylon, the Jews were forbidden to marry outside of their tribal lineage and the Greeks produced the most notorious Armies by gene pooling. Jimmy the Greek was banned from CBS sports in 1988 for merely stating the truth concerning the forced breeding practices slave owners used to produce better and stronger workers. The most recent example of a more horrendous notoriety other than the near genocide of the Jewish race in WWII, was the founding of planned parenthood by Margaret Sanger. Her thoughts on the inferiority of the black race is well known and her procedure for deleting the same is equally well known which brings me to the present. Gene pools at sperm banks are set up in such a way that females may choose the hereditary links they wish for their children while at the same time, women are aborting children in vitro if they are found to be genetically unsound. So far as agriculture goes, genetic modification is nothing new albeit there are some pretty disturbing reports about heartier productions with no real health benefits other than it's availability. It's disturbing in a greater way, at least to me, that the seed vaults that are set aside for some future apocalypse are constantly being "upgraded" to include these mutations while omitting the lesser hearty but unhealthy breed.
The idea of eugenics never went away just changed. In the 50s, 60s, 70s 80s, 90s and still going on the civilized world was warned about over population and to have less children. China having a hi IQ convinced its population to only have one child. Then convinced the mothers they needed to be in the work force next convincing them that you have lots of time to have children so get your profession first. So we now have an ageing population and no new workers to pay for the older retires. The answer of the government is to bring in people who multiply like flies to fill the gap left on purpose to eliminate the higher IQs. The people brought in from Africa have an IQ in the 70s to 80s so what does that tell you. Eugenics is not crafted to get rid of people as much as dumbing them down to control them better.
Thank you for the well-thought out responses. I never considered in opening the OP with Eugenics to imply it was the specific reason for the thread's intent. Not so. The primary aim was to expose the glaring error present when "scientific" decisions are made by non-technical and thick-skulled politicians....maybe that is a hasty generalization, but I'll let it stand. My second entry was intended to more roundly emphasize how government/science/media interplay can be exceedingly deleterious to the very citizens needing to be supported by their leadership. The final blow comes next, when I can muster up the nerve......perhaps tonight. Frank
Thanks for explaining. At one time science would come up with a theory and then use science to see if it was right. Then came money and outcomes into science and it all changed. If you have enough money you can get a scientist who will say exactly what you want. Then there is criteria put on science so the outcome is distorted. If the temperature of the world is going up it is all caused by man. For example there was a scientist who wanted to find out about the extinction of a certain type of mouse. He applied for a grant and was told there was no money for that type of research. He applied again saying he was going to prove global warming is the cause of this mouse extinction. Their reply was how much money do you need.