|
|
Post by crystalegg on Jun 10, 2007 1:16:50 GMT 1
Does anyone find Wells' views regarding eugenics disagreeable, or justified?
|
|
|
|
Post by Scifishocks on Jun 10, 2007 16:07:15 GMT 1
Do you know, I don't believe that this has ever been discussed on any board I have frequented before? And I think I know why.
Perhaps this is because people are uncomfortable with the whole thing and it is bound to be an extremely emotive topic.
I think in our, so-called, enlightened age, you'd probably be hard pressed to find anyone openly advocating his supposed views on it.
I believe Wells wanted to allow only the strongest and fittest to breed and, according to some sources (I admit I haven't read any of his work on Eugenics, I've just heard about it), called for the humane extermination of the sick and the afflicted.
Phew, what a can of worms!
|
|
|
|
Post by richardburton on Jun 11, 2007 9:45:57 GMT 1
Oh yes can and worms everywhere!!!  I suppose at the time when there was crippling levels of poverty and sickness it probably seemed almost sensible and logical (if cold and heartless!). There are people that do still argue it today with famine and disease rife in certain parts of the world. |
|
|
|
Post by killraven on Jun 11, 2007 14:00:37 GMT 1
Given the general problem we have nowadays with chavs and lowlifes, I think that proves Wells had quite a good argument!  KR |
|
|
|
Post by richardburton on Jun 11, 2007 14:08:15 GMT 1
lol I suppose chavs would be probably top of most people's lists for erradication.
|
|
|
|
Post by crystalegg on Jun 11, 2007 23:08:15 GMT 1
I threw it out there because some people have a very idealistic view of Wells and would find the idea that he entertained any such thoughts alarming.
|
|
|
|
Post by Scifishocks on Jun 12, 2007 0:29:03 GMT 1
It's surprising, reading up on it, who did have these views back then.
Sure, Adolf Hitler was an advocate, but so was Winston Churchill, I believe.
|
|
|
|
Post by crystalegg on Jun 12, 2007 1:29:27 GMT 1
It's surprising, reading up on it, who did have these views back then. Sure, Adolf Hitler was an advocate, but so was Winston Churchill, I believe. The devil is in the details. Wells believed it to be an end toward removing genetically-inherited disease and improving the species as a whole through basically benign scientific means, while Hitler simply wanted to remove from the gene pool all that was not Aryan. The problem with even benign means is that while leaps have been made in mapping single genes, how they operate together to create seemingly unrelated traits is still uncharted territory. By culling one undesirable gene, we could end up losing an urelated, yet very important beneficial trait. |
|
|
|
Post by richardburton on Jun 12, 2007 9:29:13 GMT 1
Aye, well put, Crystalegg.
Didn't know that Churchill was an advocate too.
|
|
|
|
Post by Charles on Sept 28, 2007 16:01:53 GMT 1
Does anyone find Wells' views regarding eugenics disagreeable, or justified? This is a topic that raises hackles rather easily, so its important to keep the idea in its original historical context. As a few have pointed out, regardless how we're tempted to judge historical proponents by today's standards, their intellectual beliefs weren't too far out of the ordinary at the time. That said, nearly every "supporter" of eugenics had their own definition of what it meant - and to what end it should be employed. For example, Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, was a supporter of eugenics - even though the organization itself now disagrees with several aspects of her beliefs: www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/who-we-are/margaret-sanger-planned-parenthood-founder.htm. And yeah, Wells knew her quite well... |
|
stevesudz
Trainee
The grandson of Col. Strakers hairdresser.
Posts: 97
|
Post by stevesudz on Jan 5, 2010 15:24:33 GMT 1
Interesting stuff..History is never kind to opinions such as Wells' as he tends to get lumped in with people who subsequently twisted the ideas for their own ends. Like you guys say, context is everything and, yes, some of HGs ideas can seem extreme if spoken by someone like us, but the fears and circumstances of the victorians and their society would put very different emphasis on exactly HOW the ideas come across. Indoctrination into a belief system is rarely a choice ( my great-Grandma used to put stockings on her table legs..) so isn't it hard to see the world as he did? Its a touchy subject so its nice to see an honest debate without judgements flooding in.
|
|
|
|
Post by richardburton on Jan 5, 2010 16:01:46 GMT 1
We're a fairly relaxed open-minded bunch (most of the time!)  |
|
|
|
Post by richardburton on Oct 27, 2010 18:19:50 GMT 1
|
|
evadestruction
Trainee
Can I make a suggestion that doesn't involve violence, or is this the wrong crowd for that?
Posts: 70
|
Post by evadestruction on Nov 6, 2010 15:21:34 GMT 1
IVF programs (obviously) only implant the most viable embryos. WHich if you think about it, isnt far off the whole Eugenics idea. And the next step is the removal of unwanted features or genetic disease risks. Kind of like in Gattaca.
What I mean is that today they will only implant those embryos that are unlikely to contain defects......ones that they can see problems with, but as technology gets better then the scope of problems they screen for will get larger.
...and yes, people are already trying to specify gender.
|
|
|
|
Post by richardburton on Nov 6, 2010 18:20:07 GMT 1
A good point indeed, Eva (and welcome aboard).
|
|
