Talk:Eugenics

eugenics being based upon racism and ableism

hi,

i suspect that in the future there will be consistent efforts to undermine the nuanced goals of eugenics.

in fact, it's not hard to argue that uneducated individuals with internet access have an incentive to paint eugenics as racist, because the concept itself may threaten their chances to 'thrive'.

eugenics is not racist. describing eugenics as racist reminds me of the unqualified hindus from india romping around the first world, who use the term to escape responsibility (quite often, i may add. it's the first trick in their book. that, and also: deny deny deny, even with oodles of evidence. see this as a good example: http://retractionwatch.com/2015/07/31/nutrition-researcher-chandra-loses-libel-case-against-cbc/ hindu spent 50 court days trying to deny the obvious) 174.3.155.181 (talk) 19:44, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I doubt that this is a valid TECHNICAL subject

As this article amply demonstrates, there is no consensus definition of what Eugenics is. I think that if there is no clear technical definition of it, then it isn't a subject appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia (as a separate subject). That is, Eugenics as presented in this article isn't a subject, it is a mashup of various subjects. Contrast that to the Eugenics Movement (a historical fact) that was popular until roughly 1945 - 1950, which does deserve inclusion. Any article which claims child care, prenatal care, and contraception are "methods" for Eugenics is so far into La-La land as to be beyond redemption. The major flaws are massive confusion between the historical social movement and current methods used by parents (or others) to select offspring by their characteristics (sex, genetic abnormalities, etc.) and the intentional control of population level genetics. In reading this article, I saw (but perhaps I missed it?) no mention of the most obvious method of Eugenics: polygamy, specifically the Middle-Eastern practice of wealthy males having multiple wives (although it is also not uncommon in Utah, so I hear). Supporting the reproduction of, or adding hurdles to the reproduction of some segment of the population isn't "eugenics" unless its purpose is to control (change or stabilize) the population's phenotypic expression or variation. You might as well argue that the government or insurance companies payments for eye-glasses is eugenics. Anything which significantly aids, or burdens, an individual may result in a change in reproductive success, but again that doesn't make it eugenics. It seems to me what constitute support or burden is normative. Is government support for schools for the deaf "eugenics", how about "Head Start" programs? Why not traffic lights too? (They discriminate against the blind) It has been demonstrated that certain gene abnormalities are strongly associated with incarceration (amongst males), so aren't prisons in fact limiting the reproduction potential of these men? Of course they are. But this doesn't make a prison a "part" of an eugenics program.Abitslow (talk) 23:12, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

That is utter nonsense, Eugenics is a fairly well defined concept. Most social science concepts do not have "technical" definitions. Eugenics specifically refers to a a historical ideology and the movement around it, hence there is no need to have a "technical" definition any more than there is a need to define what the "rennaissance" really was, or what "anarchism" really is. The fact that people do not agree about whether eugenics is good or bad, or if it is good how it should be carried out is the case for all ideological programs.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:57, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

It just needs to be written more clearly along the lines of WP:DABCONCEPT. If you really think it's not an encyclopedically coverable topic at all, feel free to take it to WP:AFD, and see how speedily it is kept.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:37, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

As far as I know, Francis Galton coined the word eugenics and also defined the meaning of the word. If you think that eugenics was not clearly defined, I disagree. ––Nikolas Ojala (talk) 00:02, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Few more words to clarify what I mean: Suppose that you did a new invention or formulated a new concept, perhaps a scientific discover, which had no previous name. Suppose that your definition is complete, coherent and obviously free of inner conflicts, so that it is ready for public usage. You just need to name it, so you create a name. Once you combine the definition and the name, you are ready to use it. Then, generations after you use the word you coined and defined. Is it someone's job to redefine that word? No, because it was already defined. Likewise we should not redefine eugenics but use the the definition by Francis Galton. ––Nikolas Ojala (talk) 00:29, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Mistaken linking of eugenics with Nazi Holocaust

Statements like this, "he methods of implementing eugenics varied by country; however, some early 20th century methods involved identifying and classifying individuals and their families, including the poor, mentally ill, blind, deaf, developmentally disabled, promiscuous women, homosexuals, and racial groups (such as the Roma and Jews in Nazi Germany) as "degenerate" or "unfit", the segregation or institutionalization of such individuals and groups, their sterilization, euthanasia, and their mass murder." in the article, in my view are mistaken. As Kevin MacDonald has pointed out (I know MacDonald is Anti-Jewish, but he is certainly correct in this case) "Hitler certainly did not believe Jews were genetically inferior", rather he regarded them as cunning competitors of other Europeans. http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2009/04/macdonald-ford/ He murdered the European Jewish people, not because of eugenic reasons, but for the opposite reason, he did not want an intelligent racial group competing with Germans. Eugenics did play a role in certain aspects of Nazi policy, but I don't think it had anything to do with their Anti-Jewish policies. I would suggest changing the statements linking eugenics with the Holocaust. RandomScholar30 (talk) 03:00, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Occidental Observer is WP:FRINGE... as is what you suggest EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:24, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

You are correct that MacDonald is fringe, but I just looked up the source for the statement, the source is Edwin Black. I don't know if I would call Black fringe but his writings are extremely controversial. If the statement is going to say I think at least a more neutral source should be found. RandomScholar30 (talk) 15:50, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

This was the source listed Black, Edwin (2003). War Against the Weak: Eugenics and America's Campaign to Create a Master Race. Four Walls Eight Windows. ISBN 1-56858-258-7. Shouldn't we at least try to find a more neutral source than Black? I saw Black on Glenn Beck's and he was blaming the Holocaust on American corporation, it sounded conspiratorial. He also wrote a book even that seemed to be blaming Zionists for Nazism called The Transfer Agreement, which Commentary magazine said was "conspiracy-mongering, innuendo, and sensationalism" https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/the-transfer-agreement-by-edwin-black/. I don't think its appropriate to use Black as a source.RandomScholar30 (talk) 15:53, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with Black's work, so I can't comment on his work as a whole, but he certainly isn't being used to support any controversial statements, as far as I can tell. Black's book is actually one of the top its returned in Goggle scholar on the subject, with 534 citations, which at least seems respectable. The other top results all seem to lean the same way, so I see no reason to change the article. LarryBoy79 (talk) 00:54, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Images

While on this topic, I suggest removing the image of the Hartheim Euthanasia Centre from the history section. Eugenics was only one of several rationales for implementing Action T4. Economic efficiency seems to be the larger motivation. And there already is an image of the Lebensborn hospital in this section. Two images from Nazi Germany appear to be Wikipedia:UNDUE. Waters.Justin (talk) 01:52, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

The article content you object to (without sourced rationale) is well supported by reliable sources. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (Watch my talk, How I edit) 02:46, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

This is from the Wikipedia article Action T4 and it is referenced. "Several rationales for the programme have been offered, including eugenics, compassion, reducing suffering, racial hygiene, cost effectiveness and pressure on the welfare budget." Even if Action T4 was solely motivated by eugenics, having two Nazi images in the history section gives undue weight to this time in eugenics history. I propose using this image instead.

In the decades after World War II, eugenics became increasingly unpopular within academic science. Many organizations and journals that had their origins in the eugenics movement began to distance themselves from the philosophy, as when Eugenics Quarterly became Social Biology in 1969.

Waters.Justin (talk) 03:05, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

That image, used in the article History of eugenics, could be confusing to the reader, as there is a change in title in the two later volumes. As for references, this Oxford University Press book discusses eugenics and German National Socialism but is not cited or even listed amongst the references or further reading:

Kühl, Stefan (2001), The Nazi Connection: Eugenics, American Racism, and German National Socialism, Oxford University Press, ISBN 0-19-514978-5

Mathsci (talk) 04:31, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't know how the image is confusing. The changed title just gives an example of when the word "eugenics" became taboo. If you think that book is important you can cite it or add it to the further reading section. Waters.Justin (talk) 19:13, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't see how a single picture gives undue weight, and I'm worried that removing the image would actually cause the opposite problem of not giving sufficient weight. Obviously the holocaust played an extremely important role in the history of eugenics, whether or eugenics played an important role in the holocaust. How can we even evaluate whether it is giving undue weight? What criteria can we judge this on? (Honest questions) LarryBoy79 (talk) 14:33, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

There are only two images in the history section and both are about Nazi eugenics. The image I suggested references the ideological changes after WW2, so its more historically balanced than only focusing on the Nazi time period. Waters.Justin (talk) 14:07, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

There are actually three images in the section, A picture of Galton, and the two afore mentioned pictures relating to Nazi eugenics programs. I actually really like the picture you proposed for inclusion in the article, as it visually demonstrates the sort of white washing that occurred to post world war 2 eugenics associations. The two pictures relating to the Nazi eugenics programs are nice, because they demonstrate that the Nazis implemented both a positive eugenics program and a negative eugenics program, so I feel that the two pictures should both be included. Possibly we could put them in the same frame, with a caption emphasizing that these repersent two different aspects of the same over-arching eugenics program, and also include the picture you propose? LarryBoy79 (talk) 18:14, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Sweden's program

I removed claims that Sweden continued a eugenic program into the 1970s. The source I rely on is Tydén's thesis.

It is shown how the Board [Royal Medical Board] during the 1930s and 1940s directed implementation towards extensive sterilisation of the feeble-minded, especially at institutions. This changed in the post-war period when the Board gradually retreated from its activist policy, letting implementation transform the policy from below. (The last known instruction to local personnel was published by the Board in 1947.) Mattias Tydén Från politik till praktik, page 587

Sweden had a program, but it disintegrated in the late 1940s. Edaen (talk) 14:45, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the "undo": Just about every Western country continued with coerced sterilisations of mentally handicapped into the 1980s–2010s under varying legal foundations. This includes Britain, US, Australia, France, Italy, Spain, Germany, Austria. There is not really any data to say that Sweden had any more of a "program" in the 50s–70s than most did in the 1990s. The source does say there was no program after the late 1940s. The thing about the program was restored to. Edaen (talk) 15:08, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia's own article on Compulsory_sterilisation_in_Sweden states that it took place until the 1970s, using a number of news sources in Swedish as support. Unfortunately I am unable to assess the veracity of these sources. The current citation in support of the statement, a citation to an article published on the international socialist web site, seems of dubious value. The article itself doesn't list any additional sources, so I have no idea where the number comes from, though the data "1975" appears in the title of a number of the Swedish sources. From a cursory analysis of some other news sources, it appears that some eugenics laws were repealed in the 1970s, which may be where the number comes from. But, as Edaen asserts, the existence of the laws on the books does not mean that they were enforced. The sentence in the article certainly implies that the laws were enforced, so I would be in favor of either rewording, or finding a better source for the statement. In the US it seems pretty clear that practices in California qualify, though we still need a better sources to cite. The statements used in this article should agree with the statements in the Compulsory_sterilisation_in_Sweden article as well. LarryBoy79 (talk) 17:55, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I removed the text again. There is an introduction to Swedish sterilisation policy in the government report SOU 1999:2, see the djvu-file here. Edaen (talk) 14:44, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I think you are right for removing the text. The Swedish government report says that the 1934 Sterilization Act was for those who are legally incompetent and unable to give informed consent. The justification was for the best interest of the patient and for eugenic reasons. Even today in the United States, courts allow compulsory sterilizations and abortions if it is for the best interest of the legally incompetent patient. See Doe ex. rel. Tarlow v. District of Columbia. The 1941 Sterilization Act required voluntary consent by the patient, although medical staff were allowed to attempt to persuade individuals into getting the procedure. The report also states that by 1960 almost all of the sterilizations were genuinely voluntary; however, "no certain statements on this matter can be made at this state in the investigation." Since the 1941 law prohibited compulsory sterilizations, it is seems logical to believe that the compulsory sterilizations that did occur represent mismanagement by medical staff rather than official state policy, but like the report says, the investigation is not complete. Waters.Justin (talk) 01:55, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

The definition of compulsory sterilization

I think part of the difficulty of this issue is defining what is compulsory sterilization. Technically this can include the sterilization of a mentally disabled patient who is unable to give informed consent but has a medical necessity for the procedure or is psychologically unable to deal with the pregnancy and removal of the baby from the mentally disabled person's custody. The Ashley Treatment is an extreme example of this. Although this might be be compulsory sterilization it is not eugenics because it is not done to improve the population gene pool; it is done for the best interest of the patient. These "compulsory sterilization" articles need to be carful to accurately describe whether the compulsory sterilization was done for eugenics (the public good of improving the gene pool), the public good of reducing the cost of welfare (e.g. requirements not to breed as part of a probation requirement for failed child support payments or the one child policy), a regulatory requirement in order to complete a legal gender change, or the best interest of patient unable to give informed consent. These are the four most common reasons I see for compulsory sterilization. I think all four need to be included in the articles on compulsory sterilization, but we need to be careful how to describe them, especially when the reasons overlap. Waters.Justin (talk) 01:55, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

The Guardian class of Plato?

Shouldn't it be the Guardian class of Socrates? This idea was postulated by Socrates in The Republic, which was written by Plato. Suggesting it be changed to "The idea of positive eugenics to produce better human beings has existed at least since Socrates suggested selective mating to produce a guardian class in The Republic." Hman101 (talk) 23:18, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Darwin's influence and views

@Dave souza: Thanks for adding context. There's a fascinating paper published in the Journal of Medical Ethics in 1998 by David J. Galton and Clare J. Galton that explores Darwin's influence and views on Francis Galton's ideas. I've not been able to ascertain whether the two authors are related to each other or to Francis. You may wish to peruse it and make further edits on this article. The journal is of low impact but, published by the NCBI, should be thoroughly reliable. YoPienso (talk) 09:16, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

@ YoPienso: Interesting source, have read it through but can't do more at the moment as have rather a backlog of things to sort. Much appreciated, perhaps someone else can take that on board. . . dave souza, talk 18:17, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Illogical/unsourced statement in lead

This sentence, 'Another criticism is that eugenic policies eventually lead to a loss of genetic diversity, resulting in inbreeding depression instead due to a low genetic variation.', makes no sense. It misunderstands the meaning of eugenics. Eugenics means trying to discourage people of inferior genetic qualities from reproducing, and encourage people of superior genetic qualities to reproduce, in order to reduce bad genetic characters and increase good genetic characters. Eugenics in its broad sense cannot have the result this criticism is referring, only very specific kinds of eugenics, such as the kind the royal families of Europe practiced where they married their cousins, could have this kind of dysgenic result of inbreeding depression due to lack of genetic diversity. So if that sentence is to remain, it should at least be rephrased to point out that this is only a criticism of specific kinds of eugenics, not of all eugenics. After the prohibition against incest is largely in existence for eugenic reasons and it is precisely in order to stop low genetic variation and thus stop inbreeding depression, so certain forms of eugenics, such as the incest ban, actually seek to stop low genetic variation and thus stop inbreeding depression. RandomScholar30 (talk) 18:56, 4 January 2017 (UTC)