Rockefeller Eugenics.

[FlyersFan]

Feel free to fall back on the usual and misinformation about -- Sanger.

Nothing 'misinformation' about it.

She was massively racist to the point of wanting to depopulate the black population.  You like her because she pushed abortion and, since you openly boast you've had one,  it makes you feel better to pretend she wasn't a horrible person.

As was said .... Sanger = rabid eugenicist.   Racist puke baby killer.

[ANNEE]

Eugenics is now known as gene engineering isn't it?

Something like that.  I'm just not up for another "bitch fest".

It's been happening all along in one form or another.

Nature - Animal and plant eugenics refers to any human intervention in the free and natural reproduction of animals and plants for the purpose of affecting the genetic characteristics of the offspring. Artificial selection of gene pools is also effected incidentally whenever undesirable forms in the present generation are removed from the population, deliberately or accidentally.

[DBCowboy]

Why is eugenics bad?

 

Nomination for most cringe post 2026.

But it's still early in the year.

Fingers crossed!

[Maxmars]

Unfortunately Sanger, and much of the "activist" elements of the day, had to speak the words their sponsors insisted on hearing...

But it is not "misinformation" to say that Eugenicists have always hid behind virtue, while advocating "culling and death" in accordance with some intelligentsia cabals' agenda.

The first "Bene Gesserit" inclinations stem from the 'exclusivity of privilege" allotted by those who feel their privilege is to determine who's life has value.  It is very true, this has been with us for a long while....

As if the deplorable have no place and no contribution to offer to the horde.  (Until labor is needed, or war is played.)

There appears to be a premise in the mindset... that "everyone is equal" is a punchline for peasants.

[DBCowboy]

 
         . . . . . .      "everyone is equal" . . . . . . . . 

Almost the scariest words in the English language.

[ElitePlebeian]

Eugenics is now known as gene engineering isn't it?

People want gene editing for themselves and/or their children so they don't have to be disadvantaged or suffer in any way through their life and that is a good thing.

Yes in the past eugenics was bad because it was not based on societal betterment/concerns, but rather, as with Rockefeller and other elitists, with more individual concerns or thinking they are entitled to decide these types of moral and ethical issues for all of humanity.

----
Will the existing elitist overstep their morals and ethics when it comes to deciding what is desirable or not?

From what I see of their behaviour so far, I'd say we need to eugenic their undesirable traits out of humanity.

I tend to agree, just because Eugenics has a terrible past shouldnt mean we should be so afraid of that label preventing us from using it for good.

[quintessentone]

I tend to agree, just because Eugenics has a terrible past shouldnt mean we should be so afraid of that label preventing us from using it for good.

Yes, but, I was just thinking about that and what ANNEE was trying to point out, that depending on population levels or whatever nutcase has power to effect societal changes or evolutionary traits from whatever (pick your poison) that women's reproductive rights may end up being taken away or manipulated. It could be a slippery slope.

[ElitePlebeian]

Yes, but, I was just thinking about that and what ANNEE was trying to point out, that depending on population levels or whatever nutcase has power to effect societal changes or evolutionary traits from whatever (pick your poison) that women's reproductive rights may end up being taken away or manipulated. It could be a slippery slope.

Yes but I dont think it has to be risky, I think it feels that way because we slap that label on it. But if there was some kind of treatment developed and people who feel they could benefit from it and pay for that treatment it would be a form of Eugenics that I doubt many have a problem with. Maybe just a hand full "anti-playing for god"- people.

[Maxmars]

Yes, but, I was just thinking about that and what ANNEE was trying to point out, that depending on population levels or whatever nutcase has power to effect societal changes or evolutionary traits from whatever (pick your poison) that women's reproductive rights may end up being taken away or manipulated. It could be a slippery slope.

The object of eugenicist control offers no "rights" in regards to procreation... nor how long anyone in distress might be supported medically... those decisions belong to an appointed "committee."

[UltraBudgie]

The object of eugenicist control offers no "rights" in regards to procreation... nor how long anyone in distress might be supported medically... those decisions belong to an appointed "committee."

What are often described as "rights" are actually a form of presumed entitlement.

If your "rights" require the coercion of another to provide them as a service, via government-mandated socialism, they're entitlements, not rights.

The conflation of the two is a pernicious form of socialist authoritarian incrementalism.