Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
[ Login ]
Log-in to remove these advertisements.

Eugenics

POST REPLY
Soviet cogitations: 9
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 03 Oct 2012, 04:30
New Comrade (Say hi & be nice to me!)
Post 03 Oct 2012, 05:42
I have been reading about American eugenics from about 1890s until present time. It was shocking to find out American eugenics were sold or exported to Germany, then Germany used National Socialism(Applied Biology) and a foundation of American Eugenics for the holocaust.

How does American,British, German, and Nordic eugenics differ from Lysenko Eugenics? Is there a difference between American Eugenics and communistic eugenics? Are American, British, German, and Nordic Eugenics, essentially National Socialism(Applied biology)?
Soviet cogitations: 62
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 01 Aug 2012, 23:54
Pioneer
Post 07 Oct 2012, 04:36
I am a strong supporter of eugenics. The most creative and most intelligent must be encouraged to procreate, and the least creative and least intelligent should be barred from creating children- thus, the quality of the average man, over time, will increase. This is simple evolutionary science- anyone who opposes eugenics is acting against the interests of the human race and are thus traitors to humanity and should be treated as such.

In the early Soviet Union, eugenics attracted a large number of supporters. There are no incompatibilities between eugenics and Socialist thought.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3833
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 12 Jun 2006, 02:14
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Politburo
Post 07 Oct 2012, 05:22
Nice way of showing solidarity to our brothers.

Eugenics believes some people are better than other. That is fully incompatible with socialist thought.


"Where Argentina goes, Latin America will go".
Leonid Brezhnev

Forum Rules
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 07 Oct 2012, 05:36
Quote:
Eugenics believes some people are better than other. That is fully incompatible with socialist thought.

That's just bullshit. Where are you getting this from?
Socialists not only believed "that some people are better than others" ( an otherwise undeniable fact ), but legalized it in laws and constitutions.
The belief that some people aren't better than others is fully incompatibile with common sense and fundamental facts.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3833
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 12 Jun 2006, 02:14
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Politburo
Post 07 Oct 2012, 05:41
Which laws and constitutions??
It's not about one being better than another in something in particular. It's about being equal members of society.
Who is anyone to tell another he can't reproduce? Under which standards?
That's only one step away from racial supremacy.


"Where Argentina goes, Latin America will go".
Leonid Brezhnev

Forum Rules
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 07 Oct 2012, 05:49
Quote:
Which laws and constitutions??

All and every. Look at the Soviet laws for example and you'll see how there was official discrimination against even the children of ex-owners, judges and so on and so forth.

Quote:
It's not about one being better than another in something in particular. It's about being equal members of society.

There were categories of people in the USSR that were by no means equal members of the society. That of course makes perfect sense.

Quote:
Who is anyone to tell another he can't reproduce? Under which standards?

There are many standards that can be apllied.

Quote:
That's only one step away from racial supremacy.

No it's not, because according to racists even white retards and such are "better" and more valuable as humans than for example black scientists etc.
"That" has nothing to do with idiotic racial suprematisms.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3833
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 12 Jun 2006, 02:14
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Politburo
Post 07 Oct 2012, 05:56
Yes, it's the same. Race is only one standard. What would you choose? IQ? Fitness? Beauty?
It's all arbitrary.

Eugenics is far right wing shit. It's as simple as that.


"Where Argentina goes, Latin America will go".
Leonid Brezhnev

Forum Rules
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 07 Oct 2012, 06:00
Quote:
Yes, it's the same. Race is only one standard. What would you choose? IQ? Fitness? Beauty?

The only fascist country with a serious interest in eugenics was Germany.
And what's arbitrary? Standards are of course arbitrary, as are all standards, because they are created by people but on the basis of material facts.
ISO9001 ( or whatever ) is arbitrary. Racial suprematism is arbitrary too, but only ISO9001 is taken seriously by people. Wonder why is that...


Quote:
Eugenics is far right wing shit. It's as simple as that.

No it's not. It's that simple.
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 07 Oct 2012, 09:07
Great Soviet Encyclopedia ( always a great source for everything ) on Eugenics:

Quote:
the study of the genetic health of man and of the ways of improving his genetic characteristics, of possible methods of actively influencing the evolution of mankind for the purpose of further perfecting his nature, of the conditions and laws of inheriting giftedness and talent, and of the possible limitation of transmission of hereditary diseases to future generations.

The main principles of eugenics were formulated by the English biologist F. Galton in the book Hereditary Genius (1869). Despite the fact that progressive scientists set humanitarian goals for eugenics, it has often been used by reactionaries and racists, who, basing their ideas on pseudo-scientific notions of the inferiority of certain races and peoples and on national prejudices and dissensions, have justified racial and national discrimination; these reactionaries and racists have in the end replaced eugenics, as fascism did for its own political ends, with so-called racial hygiene and have legalized genocide. Controversy rages around the term “eugenics.” Along with those who consider the use of this term rightful in the present and in the future, there are scientists who believe that the basic content of eugenics (including its tasks and goals, as well as the most reasonable means of achieving them) will be transferred to such vigorously developing branches of science as human genetics, or anthropogenetics, and medical genetics.

These sciences, which study the inheritance and variability of characters of the human organism, have shown that the diversity of human beings is due both to their hereditary disposition and their conditions of existence (including natural-climatic and socioeconomic conditions). The study of monozygotic twins, in particular of their mental development, and also genealogical observations, testify to the fact that heredity plays a large, but by no means exclusive, role in determining the mental and creative abilities of a human being. If man’s morphological characters are determined predominantly by heredity, his mental characteristics and behavior are very strongly influenced by his environment, and chiefly his social environment—rearing, education, work habits, and the influence of the collective. There are many more persons with outstanding creative potential than there are persons who have succeeded in realizing that potential. It is for this reason that it becomes so important to bring out all positive potentialities deposited in the genotype of the individual by creating conditions that in every possible way foster his development and his formation as a personality. V. I. Lenin wrote: “Capitalism stifled, suppressed, and crushed the mass of gifted persons among the workers and toiling peasants. These gifted persons perished under the yoke of necessity, poverty, and outrage practiced upon human personality. Our duty now is to know how to find these gifted persons and put them to work” (Poln. sobr. soch., 5th ed., vol. 39, p. 235).

With respect to the possibilities and methods of improving human nature, there are different points of view. Much can be done along these lines by medical genetics, whose tasks include the study of the action of mutagens—chemical ones, radiation, and other factors of the external environment that damage genetic structures in human germ cells—and the prevention (including by sanitation of the environment in which man lives) of harmful mutations that threaten the health of future generations. The manifestation of harmful mutations is especially promoted by marriages between relatives, since in such cases the probability of obtaining from both parents an ordinarily masked (recessive) harmful character is increased. This explains the fact that in isolated human groups (isolates), where, as a rule, marriages between close relatives are more frequent, the percentage of hereditary diseases and deformities is higher. The harmful consequences of marriages between close relatives were noted even in antiquity, which led to their condemnation, prohibition by custom, and subsequently also by law. Prevention of the spread of harmful mutations and their combinations by limiting marriages between carriers of such mutations is accomplished by medical genetic consultations, whose purpose is to evaluate the possibilities of manifestation of a defective heredity in the off-spring of persons entering marriage. Quite precise predictions in this respect can already be made for many hereditary diseases, such as hemophilia and color blindness. Contrary to precautionary (preventive) measures, which prevent deterioration of human heredity, so-called positive measures of acting on human nature (including artificial insemination, creation of “semen banks,” and “heteronomous fertilization”), which predominantly contemplate increasing the number of offspring among persons with outstanding mental or physical qualities, are addressed to the future. Such methods of improving the human species have been repeatedly criticized and have not been recognized or practiced on a large scale. The solution of the problems associated with strengthening the genetic health of mankind, which remains an important contemporary problem, requires further detailed research in human genetics, with ever wider use of the methods and achievements of molecular genetics.


As you can see there is nothing there that supports your claim that "eugenics is far right shit".
Eugenics is not really about exterminating the mentally ill or sterilizing "undesirables" and all the other things done in Nazi Germany , on the contrary...
Soviet cogitations: 2051
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 24 Jun 2011, 08:37
Party Bureaucrat
Post 07 Oct 2012, 13:45
Soviet discrimination was on basis of class, not genetics.

How can eugenics be practiced in any matter that benefits the proletarian class as a whole, and does not rely on a fascist state taking control of free, proletarian citizens?
Soviet America is Free America!

Under communism, there is no freedom; you are not free to live in poverty, be homeless, to be without an education, to starve, or to be without a job
Soviet cogitations: 2408
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 01 Nov 2003, 13:17
Ideology: Other
Forum Commissar
Post 07 Oct 2012, 16:00
To deny a person the right to procreate and continue their lineage is a crime against nature.
Soviet cogitations: 62
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 01 Aug 2012, 23:54
Pioneer
Post 08 Oct 2012, 04:36
Mentally retarded people contribute nothing to society and are entirely parasitic in nature- if they, as well as people who are immoral, unethical, lazy, etc, are banned from procreating as well, evolution dictates society will become better in the long run.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4764
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 20 Jul 2007, 06:59
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Forum Commissar
Post 08 Oct 2012, 07:20
Eugenics is taking extreme measures on flimsy premises and even worse ideological flaws.

We are social beings to such large degrees that placing so much emphasis on genetic makeup is very naive pseudo-science. Talks of gay genes or criminal genes and so on have been shown to be just quack science.

Even in the cases you can more or less clearly see a genetic link, like mental retardation, there's still the big question of what other effects these genes have, how they interrelate and much more. These are things that, to me, should prevent us from wanting to "weed out" our gene pool, since there's so little we know about it.

Furthermore, since when is "contributing to society" an existential rule that determines whether you live or die? It's troubling to think in those terms, since we want to overcome such fetishized reason. Society isn't an end in itself. That's dangerously similar to the fascist hypostasis of society.
Image

"You say you have no enemies? How is this so? Have you never spoken the truth, never loved justice?" - Santiago Ramón y Cajal
Forum Rules
Soviet cogitations: 62
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 01 Aug 2012, 23:54
Pioneer
Post 08 Oct 2012, 10:37
It is not psuedoscience- it is scientifically proven that genes play a role in intelligence, behavior, and much more- but even if they didn't, eugenics is still a good idea, because criminals, the mentally retarded, the mentally ill, and other social undesirables, when raising children, more than likely transfer their negative traits onto their offspring.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4953
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 13 Feb 2008, 15:25
Ideology: Other Leftist
Politburo
Post 09 Oct 2012, 02:58
I want to clear up some misconceptions on both sides of this debate. Firstly, there's pretty clear evidence showing that genetics does influence our behaviour. A genetic link has been found in serial killers for example. However, this is not a nature vs. nurture argument. The evidence is showing that most serial killers with the gene (It's actually a gene variant, not an extra gene) found to affect their behaviour also had a rough childhood, those with the gene who had a supportive and caring childhood have a much lower chance of committing murder later in life. On the other side of the coin, people who have a rough childhood, but have no genetic predisposition tend not to become killers later in life. It's not a case of nature vs nurture, but nature and nurture working together to influence our behaviour. An important conclusion we can draw from this is that free will doesn't truly exist. Society can be and is engineered.

This said, a eugenics programme won't prevent serial killers from being born. Creating a better environment for children to grow up in won't prevent the problem completely either. Genetic predispositions still need to be considered and dealt with.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4764
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 20 Jul 2007, 06:59
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Forum Commissar
Post 09 Oct 2012, 05:16
I'm not saying that there's no role. I'm saying that simplifying it to just genetics is wrong, because of the "nurture" side.

In any case, we're still talking about predispositions, statistics, probabilities. And there's still the question of what other effects these genes might have.
Image

"You say you have no enemies? How is this so? Have you never spoken the truth, never loved justice?" - Santiago Ramón y Cajal
Forum Rules
Soviet cogitations: 62
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 01 Aug 2012, 23:54
Pioneer
Post 09 Oct 2012, 09:30
Quote:
This said, a eugenics programme won't prevent serial killers from being born. Creating a better environment for children to grow up in won't prevent the problem completely either.


This is why both eugenics and social engineering are necessary.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4953
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 13 Feb 2008, 15:25
Ideology: Other Leftist
Politburo
Post 09 Oct 2012, 09:53
Eugenics is unnecessary and ethically questionable. I'd even argue that it does more harm to society than good by reducing diversity and removing people who could actually be beneficial given the chance, genetically and socially.
Soviet cogitations: 2408
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 01 Nov 2003, 13:17
Ideology: Other
Forum Commissar
Post 09 Oct 2012, 12:36
Andropov wrote:
Mentally retarded people contribute nothing to society and are entirely parasitic in nature- if they, as well as people who are immoral, unethical, lazy, etc, are banned from procreating as well, evolution dictates society will become better in the long run.


So there is no need to legislate this, it will happen naturally. Who will want to marry people who are immoral, unethical or lazy? If moral education is conducted then the genetics will naturally be in good order as well because people will steer away from marrying such individuals.

In America I have noticed that many unethical, lazy and immoral people are given a high status. It might be due to the cynicism of people but I think in many Western countries they do not care so long as the other person is good at sex and has lots of money. So this natural eugenics has been done away with over time in the more developed countries.

Fellow Comrade wrote:
Eugenics is unnecessary and ethically questionable. I'd even argue that it does more harm to society than good by reducing diversity and removing people who could actually be beneficial given the chance, genetically and socially.


Yes I agree. It happens naturally anyhow by people choosing who to marry based on good choices.
Soviet cogitations: 9
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 03 Oct 2012, 04:30
New Comrade (Say hi & be nice to me!)
Post 17 Oct 2012, 06:05
I am against Nazi holocaust eugenics. As for American eugenics, there is nothing that distinguishes it from Nazi holocaust eugenics. American eugenics was based purely on physical characteristics (example: blue eyes, blond hair) politically motivated(nationalistic) and social Darwinist [I recall Darwin was from a monarchy]. Some of the eugenics were used to prevent non Nordics and non Germans from reproducing (in America), others used it to kill (like in the holocaust).

http://www.soviet-empire.com/ussr/viewtopic.php?f=110&t=37937
This is partially what I was looking for:
Quote:
From "Science in Russia and the Soviet Union: A Short History" (Cambridge Studies in the History of Science) by Loren R. Graham:

--

People outside the Soviet Union who know about Lysenkoism are often surprised to hear that in the 1920s a group of Soviet geneticists were world leaders, making breakthroughs that earned them credit for being among the creators of population genetics. But since most of these Soviet geneticists were destroyed or dispersed in the later period of Lysenko, the reconstruction of the historical record has been difficult.

Mark Adams has been the major historian of science resurrecting this period.[10] He pointed out that it was the Soviet geneticist Nikolai Kol'tsov (1872-1049) who brought together in the 1920s at the Institute of Experimental Biology in Moscow a group of researchers who laid the basis for "the new population genetics." The head of the genetics section of the institute was Sergei Chetverikov (1880-1959), a traditional Darwinist specializing in insects, who acquired deep interests in genetics and biometrics. Out of the confluence of these interests the new synthesis of genetic teaching developed. Adams has pointed out that the researchers around Chetverikov made a threefold contribution: They developed a deeper understanding of the influence of genetic and environmental backgrounds on the effects of genes; they bridged the gap between Mendelism and Darwinism; and they founded experimental population genetics by conducting the first genetic analysis of the free-living Drosophila melanogaster species of fruit fly.[11]

In order to understand this achievement of Soviet biology, it is necessary to recall that in the early twentieth century many biologists saw a tension, if not a contradiction, between Darwinian evolution and Mendelian genetics. Darwinians envisioned changes in organisms occurring gradually over long periods of time, based on minute variations; Mendelists at first emphasized the extreme stability of the gene, and, then later, incorporating the concept of mutation, depicted stability occasionally interrupted by rather large changes, a different picture from the traditional Darwinian one. Furthermore, the members of the different camps proceeded on the basis of contrasted methods. The followers of traditional Darwinism emphasized descriptive natural history, while the new Mendelians used mathematical approaches. Was there any way all this could be brought together, or was the Darwinian approach destined to be superseded by the Mendelian?

By the second decade of this century, biologists concerned with the problems could be roughly classified into three groups: naturalists working within the late nineteenth-century Darwinian tradition; geneticists studying gene location and mutation, many of them connected with the school of T. H. Morgan at Columbia University; and "biometricians" utilizing highly mathematical methods as developed by Karl Pearson and others. While some hope existed of finding a commonality or "synthesis" of the different approaches, none was apparent.

One of the most important papers pointing a way to such a synthesis was written by Chetverikov in 1926. Chetverikov noted in the opening sentences of his article that Mendelism was greeted with hostility by "outstanding evolutionists" both in Russia and abroad, and then stated his goal as bringing these two approaches together through a clarification of evolution from the standpoint of genetic concepts.[12] Chetverikov then went on the argue that the process of mutation being observed in laboratories also occurred in nature, but that because recessive mutant would be heterozygous, they would not be evidence in phenotypical forms. Natural selection would quickly eliminate harmful dominants, but would act more slowly against harmful recessives. Thus, there would be a build-up of hidden recessive mutants in any population.

In the same paper, Chetverikov agreed with T. H. Morgan and others that selection cannot affect genes themselves, but emphasized that genes do not act in isolation from the rest of the genotype:

Quote:
The very same gene will manifest itself differently, depending on the complex of the other genes in which it finds itself. For it, this complex, this genotype, will be the genotypic milieu, within the surroundings of which it will be externally manifested. And was phenotypically every character depends for its expression on the surrounding external environment, and is the reaction of the organism to the given external influences, so genotypically each character depends for its expression on the structure of the whole genotype, and is a reaction to definite internal influences.


Chetverikov was presenting here extremely sophisticated concepts of population genetics, and he and his students supported these concepts with original experimental work on natural populations.

Another Soviet innovation in genetics in these years was the presentation of the concept of "gene pool." The Russian geneticist A. S. Serebrovskii first formulated the concept in the terms of genofond ("gene fund"), a word that was brought from the Soviet Union to the United States by Theodosius Dobzhansky, one of the members of the Chetverikov group, who translated it into English as "gene pool." Even today few people know that this term, so common in biological discourse in the world, has a Russian origin. Yet another Soviet researcher, D. D. Romashov, arrived independently at the concept of "genetic drift," developed in the West by Sewall Wright and others.

[...]

Just as there was an early golden period in the history of Soviet genetics, a period now largely forgotten because of the subsequent disaster of Lysenkoism, so also there was a pioneering moment in the history of Soviet conservation theory and community ecology. The historian who has uncovered this fascination episode, also an American, is Douglas R. Weiner, who points out that "through the early 1930s the Soviet Union was on the cutting edge of conservation theory and practice." Russians were among the pioneers in phytosociology (I. K. Pachoskii, G. F. Morozov, V. N. Sukhachev), the individualistic theory of plant distribution (L. G. Ramenskii), and ecological energetics (V. V. Stanchinskii).[15]

[...]

Areas of traditional Russian and Soviet strength in biology include ornithology and zoogeography (the tradition extending from G. G. Doppel'mair through P. P. Sushkin, M. A. Menzbir, V. V. Stanchinskii), limnology and hydrobiology (L. S. Berg, G. G. Vinberg, V. S. Ivlev), and descriptive zoology (A. N. Severtsov, S. I. Ognev). Pioneering studies in the role of snow cover on the ecology of animals were conducted by A. N. Formozov, A. A. Nasmovich, and O. I. Semenov-tian-shanskii. Other innovative work in animal ecology was done by D. N. Kashkarov (steppe and deserve fauna) and G. F. Gauze ("competitive exclusion"). L. G. Ramenskii was a distinguished plant ecologist as was V. N. Sukachev. A. A. Rode continued Dokuchaev's work on the formation of soils, integrating such neglected factors as soil hydrology and the action of individual species of decomposers on specific classes of decaying organic matter.
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.