What this means is when you claim the movie is about eugenics, you are choosing to ignore the environmental aspect, and instead focusing on the genetic aspect of intelligence.
You see: I believe that even your nuanced take on intelligence is selling the whole thing short. Intelligence is something that seems intuitive but actually isn’t very well understood (but sadly: quite often used as justification for discrimination).
So, I don’t believe any of those things about inheritabiliy of intelligence. Yet, the basic premise of the movie relies a lot on inheritability of intelligence. I’m saying that the whole setup of the movie is a thought experiment, based on eugenic principles.
I don’t think that eugenics relies on genes, btw. Eugenicists actually always took an effort to ignore socio-economical issues. The core narrative of (negative) eugenics is “if the wrong people reproduce too much, we have a problem”. The justification, be it genes, nature, or nurture, comes afterwards.
The core narrative of (negative) eugenics is “if the wrong people reproduce too much, we have a problem”.
Reproduce, meaning procreate/have kids?
This clarification matters because if it’s just about giving birth to kids, it fundamentally is about genes. The justification is whatever quality the eugenicist is hoping to encourage. The underlying mechanism, once again, is genes.
Here’s a question that might further the discussion. Is it considered eugenics to control who gets to adopt babies? If it’s not eugenics, then why does choosing who can have babies through procreation fall under the umbrella of eugenics? What’s the difference between these scenarios?
It would be very helpful if you could share a source that discusses eugenics in the absence of passing on biologically inherited traits. The vast majority of definitions that I’ve seen focuses on this supposed passing on of biological inheritance of traits.
But the mechanics don’t matter, since eugenics don’t rely on genes. Taking away the children of native American parents, since those were deemed “unfit to raise them properly” was once eugenicist practices. Eugenics doesn’t rely on genetics at all.
It doesn’t matter if the justification is “genes”, or “capabilities of raising children”, or cosmic radiation or whatever.
Is it considered eugenics to control who gets to adopt babies?
Kind of? That one’s a grey area and it depends on e.g. motivation. Can gay people not adopt children? I’d say that reeks of eugenics. Can a household that clearly can’t care for the well-being of a child not adopt? I’d argue that’s not eugenistic.
Can you share a source that discusses eugenics without the context of biologically inherited traits? I did a search for “eugenics native American children” and all of the hits discuss forced sterilization, which reinforces my belief that mechanics do matter because eugenics does rely on genes.
When discussing taking away the children of native Americans, I believe that falls under genocide, instead of eugenics. Also bad, but different bad.
To get the conversation started, here’s the definition of eugenics provided by a few common sources:
Not everything inheritaple is based on genes. If two people who love playing the violin get children,I’ll guaranteeyou that their offspring will know one thing or two about violins.
Culture can be inherited, too. Which is mainly why first nation people were sterilized: to effectively genocide their culture.
I don’t think that definitionss help too much with these kinds of discussion, since they ignore the historical context of a historical phenomenon.
We’re in agreement on that - I was stating earlier that there are social aspects that can be “inherited”, for example, the nurture segment of intelligence.
However at the end of the day, every definition I’ve seen for eugenics focuses on the biological inherited traits, and none mention these socially/culturally inherited ones. Intelligence is impacted by both biologically inherited traits as well as socially inherited traits, which is why I’m proposing that eugenics, which I’ve not seen defined to cover socially inherited traits, is only a potential driver. In the absence of the movie explicitly calling out the lack of an “intelligence gene”, failing social nets not preventing socially/culturally inherited stupidity is an equally valid reason.
I’ve asked multiple times for sources discussing eugenics outside of the scope of biologically inherited traits.
If the historical context you’re describing does not fall under that request, it’s not relevant because we’d circle back around to eugenics necessitating biologically inherited traits. If the historical context you’re describing does fall under that request, I’m all ears.
Similar to how I understand your example of taking away native American children to fall under genocide and not eugenics, I suspect there’s a misunderstanding in the definition of eugenics.
You see: I believe that even your nuanced take on intelligence is selling the whole thing short. Intelligence is something that seems intuitive but actually isn’t very well understood (but sadly: quite often used as justification for discrimination).
So, I don’t believe any of those things about inheritabiliy of intelligence. Yet, the basic premise of the movie relies a lot on inheritability of intelligence. I’m saying that the whole setup of the movie is a thought experiment, based on eugenic principles.
I don’t think that eugenics relies on genes, btw. Eugenicists actually always took an effort to ignore socio-economical issues. The core narrative of (negative) eugenics is “if the wrong people reproduce too much, we have a problem”. The justification, be it genes, nature, or nurture, comes afterwards.
Reproduce, meaning procreate/have kids?
This clarification matters because if it’s just about giving birth to kids, it fundamentally is about genes. The justification is whatever quality the eugenicist is hoping to encourage. The underlying mechanism, once again, is genes.
Here’s a question that might further the discussion. Is it considered eugenics to control who gets to adopt babies? If it’s not eugenics, then why does choosing who can have babies through procreation fall under the umbrella of eugenics? What’s the difference between these scenarios?
It would be very helpful if you could share a source that discusses eugenics in the absence of passing on biologically inherited traits. The vast majority of definitions that I’ve seen focuses on this supposed passing on of biological inheritance of traits.
Yes, have kids.
But the mechanics don’t matter, since eugenics don’t rely on genes. Taking away the children of native American parents, since those were deemed “unfit to raise them properly” was once eugenicist practices. Eugenics doesn’t rely on genetics at all.
It doesn’t matter if the justification is “genes”, or “capabilities of raising children”, or cosmic radiation or whatever.
Kind of? That one’s a grey area and it depends on e.g. motivation. Can gay people not adopt children? I’d say that reeks of eugenics. Can a household that clearly can’t care for the well-being of a child not adopt? I’d argue that’s not eugenistic.
Can you share a source that discusses eugenics without the context of biologically inherited traits? I did a search for “eugenics native American children” and all of the hits discuss forced sterilization, which reinforces my belief that mechanics do matter because eugenics does rely on genes.
When discussing taking away the children of native Americans, I believe that falls under genocide, instead of eugenics. Also bad, but different bad.
To get the conversation started, here’s the definition of eugenics provided by a few common sources:
Not everything inheritaple is based on genes. If two people who love playing the violin get children,I’ll guaranteeyou that their offspring will know one thing or two about violins.
Culture can be inherited, too. Which is mainly why first nation people were sterilized: to effectively genocide their culture.
I don’t think that definitionss help too much with these kinds of discussion, since they ignore the historical context of a historical phenomenon.
We’re in agreement on that - I was stating earlier that there are social aspects that can be “inherited”, for example, the nurture segment of intelligence.
However at the end of the day, every definition I’ve seen for eugenics focuses on the biological inherited traits, and none mention these socially/culturally inherited ones. Intelligence is impacted by both biologically inherited traits as well as socially inherited traits, which is why I’m proposing that eugenics, which I’ve not seen defined to cover socially inherited traits, is only a potential driver. In the absence of the movie explicitly calling out the lack of an “intelligence gene”, failing social nets not preventing socially/culturally inherited stupidity is an equally valid reason.
You’re simply going to ignore the historical context, are you?
I’ve asked multiple times for sources discussing eugenics outside of the scope of biologically inherited traits.
If the historical context you’re describing does not fall under that request, it’s not relevant because we’d circle back around to eugenics necessitating biologically inherited traits. If the historical context you’re describing does fall under that request, I’m all ears.
Similar to how I understand your example of taking away native American children to fall under genocide and not eugenics, I suspect there’s a misunderstanding in the definition of eugenics.
Haven’t you already given examples with sterilization of indigenous people?
Race “science” was always an excuse for racism. First racism, then race. Notthe other way around.
You can genocide people through eugenics (culturally repressive control of reproduction).