Naked Science Forum
General Discussion & Feedback => Just Chat! => Topic started by: smart on 20/09/2017 10:05:32
-
Eugenics science is not dead. It has been replaced by the social neuropolitics of man-made climate change.
What do you think?
-
Climate change is to this century what eugenics was to the last century.
-
Eugenics science is not dead. It has been replaced by the social neuropolitics of man-made climate change.
What do you think?
Eugenics is the science of improving a human population by controlled breeding to increase the occurrence of desirable heritable characteristics. Developed largely by Francis Galton as a method of improving the human race, it fell into disfavor only after the perversion of its doctrines by the Nazis.
Manmade global warming is based on the politics of fear, whereas eugenics was originally about the optimization of the human species. A healthy population reduces the need for health care. The latter was more utopian and therefore motivated by idealism.
Manmade global warming does not try to optimize individual humans, but tends to take political sides which has little to do with natural selection. This is more like the Nazi extrapolation of eugenics, which was more about arrogance and hate and the induction of fear, with the goal of a world order. The world order of Eugenics was more about biological optimization regardless of political affiliation.
-
I think this not a scientific/technical question on environment, so I'm moving it to just chat.
-
I have no idea how you've connected those two ideas, given that they deal with two completely different subject matters.
-
Climate change is to this century what eugenics was to the last century.
If you cite Sarah Palin as your source on a science web page, you have pretty much lost the argument already.
-
I have no idea how you've connected those two ideas, given that they deal with two completely different subject matters.
You should ask @yor_on about it. He thinks depopulation (by making less babies) is actually a good fix for climate change: https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=71107
-
If you cite Sarah Palin as your source on a science web page, you have pretty much lost the argument already.
Please don't make discrimination based on the gender. Sexist comments have no place on a science forum.
-
You should ask @yor_on about it. He thinks depopulation (by making less babies) is actually a good fix for climate change: https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=71107
That's not eugenics.
Please don't make discrimination based on the gender. Sexist comments have no place on a science forum.
It's not because she's a woman, it's because she's a science denialist. Last I heard, she was also a young Earth creationist.
-
You should ask @yor_on about it. He thinks depopulation (by making less babies) is actually a good fix for climate change: https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=71107
That's not eugenics.
Yes it is. You're free to call depopulation however you want, but technically positive eugenics works this way. In contrast, negative eugenics is about the mass killing of people like the Nazi's did to the Jews. Climate change is a form of positive eugenics if you consider how the social neuropolitics of fear is used as a weapon to curb our behaviors.
-
It's not because she's a woman, it's because she's a science denialist. Last I heard, she was also a young Earth creationist.
So what? Even if she doesn't believe in the pseudoscience of climate change, it does not mean she cannot understand science.
In fact, I believe she's truly courageous to challenge the official narratives by comparing climate change to eugenics.
-
Yes it is. You're free to call depopulation however you want, but technically positive eugenics works this way. In contrast, negative eugenics is about the mass killing of people like the Nazi's did to the Jews. Climate change is a form of positive eugenics if you consider how the social neuropolitics of fear is used as a weapon to curb our behaviors.
Eugenics is specifically about selective breeding of the human species by allowing some individuals to reproduce and other individuals not to. If all individuals reduce their reproductive rate equally, there is no net change in the allele frequencies in the human population and thus no change in selective pressures have taken place. That is not eugenics.
How can climate change be a form of eugenics? Climate change is just that: a change of climate. If you were taking a test at school and it asked you to define a form of eugenics, do you think you'd get your answer marked as correct if you wrote "a change of climate"?
So what? Even if she doesn't believe in the pseudoscience of climate change, it does not mean she cannot understand science.
It shows what her ability (or lack thereof) to analyze evidence is.
In fact, I believe she's truly courageous to challenge the official narratives by comparing climate change to eugenics.
Yes, just like it is "courageous" of her to deny the hard science that has determined the age of the Earth.
-
Climate change is a form of positive eugenics if you consider how the social neuropolitics of fear is used as a weapon to curb our behaviors.
What part do you not understand in this?
-
What part do you not understand in this?
The part where you say changes in weather patterns over time is the same thing as selective breeding of the human species. Genetics and weather are not remotely the same. That's about like me saying that tornadogenesis is the same as DNA replication. If this is not the kind of thing you meant, then maybe you should more carefully consider the grammatical structure of your sentences. If what you are really trying to say is "climate change is being used to promote positive eugenics", then that has a very different meaning from "climate change is a form of positive eugenics".
-
The part where you say changes in weather patterns over time is the same thing as selective breeding of the human species. Genetics and weather are not remotely the same. That's about like me saying that tornadogenesis is the same as DNA replication. If this is not the kind of thing you meant, then maybe you should more carefully consider the grammatical structure of your sentences. If what you are really trying to say is "climate change is being used to promote positive eugenics", then that has a very different meaning from "climate change is a form of positive eugenics".
OK. I have perhaps wrongly expressed myself. Sorry for the confusion. Still, I do think that climate change do promote positive eugenics one way or another.
-
Still, I do think that climate change do promote positive eugenics one way or another.
What do you think that means?
-
Still, I do think that climate change do promote positive eugenics one way or another.
What do you think that means?
I thought you really didn't care what I think.
-
Still, I do think that climate change do promote positive eugenics one way or another.
What do you think that means?
I thought you really didn't care what I think.
I presume you are unable to answer my question.
You know that your post was meaningless.
-
Still, I do think that climate change do promote positive eugenics one way or another.
Here are some definitions of eugenics as provided by various dictionaries:
(1) Dictionary.com - "the study of or belief in the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population, especially by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics)"
(2) Cambridge Dictionary - "The idea that it is possible to improve humans by allowing only some people to produce children."
(3) Oxford Dictionary - "The science of improving a population by controlled breeding to increase the occurrence of desirable heritable characteristics."
(4) Merriam-Webster Dictionary - "A science that deals with the improvement (as by control of human mating) of hereditary qualities of a race or breed."
Not a single one of these definitions includes limiting the total population of the human species as an aspect of eugenics. You don't get to invent your own definition of a word and expect other people to accept it when it contradicts existing definitions of that word.
-
Still, I do think that climate change do promote positive eugenics one way or another.
What do you think that means?
I thought you really didn't care what I think.
I presume you are unable to answer my question.
You know that your post was meaningless.
It's only meaningless to you because I presume you have no idea what the "social neuropolitics of climate change" means.
-
Here are some definitions of eugenics as provided by various dictionaries:
(1) Dictionary.com - "the study of or belief in the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population, especially by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics)"
(2) Cambridge Dictionary - "The idea that it is possible to improve humans by allowing only some people to produce children."
(3) Oxford Dictionary - "The science of improving a population by controlled breeding to increase the occurrence of desirable heritable characteristics."
(4) Merriam-Webster Dictionary - "A science that deals with the improvement (as by control of human mating) of hereditary qualities of a race or breed."
Not a single one of these definitions includes limiting the total population of the human species as an aspect of eugenics. You don't get to invent your own definition of a word and expect other people to accept it when it contradicts existing definitions of that word.
I disagree.
Depopulation, one way or another, is eugenics. The social neuropolitics of climate change purpose is to limit/reduce the global human population by promoting positive eugenics in our social behavior.
-
Still, I do think that climate change do promote positive eugenics one way or another.
What do you think that means?
I thought you really didn't care what I think.
I presume you are unable to answer my question.
You know that your post was meaningless.
It's only meaningless to you because I presume you have no idea what the "social neuropolitics of climate change" means.
You are not fooling anyone.
You know that "Still, I do think that climate change do promote positive eugenics one way or another." is meaningless.
-
I disagree.
Depopulation, one way or another, is eugenics.
So where does it say that in the four definitions I posted?
-
You are not fooling anyone.
You know that "Still, I do think that climate change do promote positive eugenics one way or another." is meaningless.
Please get serious..
It seems nothing can stop you from blowing hot air.
Why can't you investigate about the connection between eugenics and climate change?
-
I disagree.
Depopulation, one way or another, is eugenics.
So where does it say that in the four definitions I posted?
"The idea that it is possible to improve humans by allowing only some people to produce children."
It is well known that "depopulation" is technically the same as "eugenics".
Do you have problems with reading/analyzing texts?
-
"The idea that it is possible to improve humans by allowing only some people to produce children."
"Some" is indeed the operative word here. Preventing "all" people from reproducing beyond a certain limit is not the same as preventing "some" people from reproducing beyond a certain limit. Unless you think "some" and "all" are synonyms (which they are not). You're also ignoring the part of the definition that says "improve humans", which is not what general depopulation would do: only selective depopulation can do that.
It is well known that "depopulation" is technically the same as "eugenics".
Not according to those dictionary definitions, it isn't. A dictionary is far more authoritative on the definition of a word than you are.
Do you have problems with reading/analyzing texts?
None at all.
-
You're also ignoring the part of the definition that says "improve humans", which is not what general depopulation would do
Unfortunately, the pseudoscience of eugenics as developed by the Nazis is promoting the improvement of humanity through unilateral depopulation. We need to stop thinking man-made climate change is a natural consequence of climatic variations and investigate the disinformation and propaganda used to promote this junk science.
-
Unfortunately, the pseudoscience of eugenics as developed by the Nazis is promoting the improvement of humanity through unilateral depopulation. We need to stop thinking man-made climate change is a natural consequence of climatic variations and investigate the disinformation and propaganda used to promote this junk science.
You think "unilateral" and "general" are synonyms?
-
You think "unilateral" and "general" are synonyms?
No. There is no such thing as "general depopulation". What history told us is that the Nazis eugenics promoted the unilateral/selective depopulation of humanity, either by positive or negative methods. Climate change is no different than eugenics by promoting radical solutions to this "problem" of overpopulation leading to excessive CO2 emissions. In reality, overpopulation is not the real issue;The real problem is globalization and the unilateral polarisation of freethinking done by the elites seeking to dominate humanity through hate propaganda and the radicalisation of science. Hence, the true purpose of geoengineering is climate change. The true purpose of man-made "climate change" is eugenics.
-
No. There is no such thing as "general depopulation".
If all of the governments of the world were to put a strict limit on the number of children an individual could have, regardless of their class, ethnicity, race or other traits, that would indeed be "general depopulation" because no one group of people is being singled out.
What history told us is that the Nazis eugenics promoted the unilateral/selective depopulation of humanity, either by positive or negative methods. Climate change is no different than eugenics by promoting radical solutions to this "problem" of overpopulation leading to excessive CO2 emissions. In reality, overpopulation is not the real issue;The real problem is globalization and the unilateral polarisation of freethinking done by the elites seeking to dominate humanity through hate propaganda and the radicalisation of science. Hence, the true purpose of geoengineering is climate change. The true purpose of man-made "climate change" is eugenics.
Disregarding the actual definition of eugenics for a moment, you have zero evidence that climate change is a conspiracy theory in the first place, let alone one intended to reduce the size of the world's population.
-
Disregarding the actual definition of eugenics for a moment, you have zero evidence that climate change is a conspiracy theory in the first place, let alone one intended to reduce the size of the world's population.
You really have no clue what are the "social neuropolitics of climage change", don't you?
-
You really have no clue what are the "social neuropolitics of climage change", don't you?
Something you made up, if I had to guess. Either that or something somebody else made up.
-
Why can't you investigate about the connection between eugenics and climate change?
Because it doesn't exist.
-
Because it doesn't exist.
The connection between eugenics science and climate change is highly controversial and based on historical evidences. All I'm trying to do is to establish the role of scientific radicalisation in the fabrication of the climate change myth.
-
The connection between eugenics science and climate change is highly controversial and based on historical evidences. All I'm trying to do is to establish the role of scientific radicalisation in the fabrication of the climate change myth.
Any time you feel like providing us with the evidence for this, go ahead. You haven't so far.
-
Because it doesn't exist.
The connection between eugenics science and climate change is highly controversial and based on historical evidences. All I'm trying to do is to establish the role of scientific radicalisation in the fabrication of the climate change myth.
This isn't a myth
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record
I'm not a liar.
You have not shown any link between climate change and eugenics.
-
The connection between eugenics science and climate change is highly controversial and based on historical evidences. All I'm trying to do is to establish the role of scientific radicalisation in the fabrication of the climate change myth.
Any time you feel like providing us with the evidence for this, go ahead. You haven't so far.
Hello??
Do I really need to make your education about how the Nazis promoted negative eugenics in hope to "save humanity" ?
-
Hello??
Do I really need to make your education about how the Nazis promoted negative eugenics in hope to "save humanity" ?
I'm well aware of what the Nazis wanted. That's not what I'm asking for. What I'm asking for is evidence that climate change is a conspiracy that was invented to promote eugenics.
-
I'm well aware of what the Nazis wanted. That's not what I'm asking for. What I'm asking for is evidence that climate change is a conspiracy that was invented to promote eugenics.
Neuropolitics is what the Nazis used to mentally force people to accept that regime. Climate change is no different than eugenics in forcing us to accept this Nazi-like theory and influence our behavior.
-
I'm well aware of what the Nazis wanted. That's not what I'm asking for. What I'm asking for is evidence that climate change is a conspiracy that was invented to promote eugenics.
Neuropolitics is what the Nazis used to mentally force people to accept that regime. Climate change is no different than eugenics in forcing us to accept this Nazi-like theory and influence our behavior.
So "Neuropolitics" means persuasion.
The Nazis never "forced" anyone to believe anything- you can't.
Also
-
The Nazis never "forced" anyone to believe anything- you can't.
Nice one...
You would be surprised by how Obama and Dicaprio globalisation mafia is expecting us to accept climate change in our life.
-
Climate change is no different than eugenics in forcing us to accept this Nazi-like theory and influence our behavior.
You have provided no evidence to back up this statement.
-
Climate change is no different than eugenics in forcing us to accept this Nazi-like theory and influence our behavior.
You have provided no evidence to back up this statement.
Why do you keep denying the existence of neuropolitics?
Don't you realize that climate change is meant to exist for controlling our social behavior?
-
Climate change is no different than eugenics in forcing us to accept this Nazi-like theory and influence our behavior.
You have provided no evidence to back up this statement.
Why do you keep denying the existence of neuropolitics?
Don't you realize that climate change is meant to exist for controlling our social behavior?
You have provided no evidence to back up this statement.
-
Why do you keep denying the existence of neuropolitics?
Don't you realize that climate change is meant to exist for controlling our social behavior?
Repeating a claim is not evidence for a claim. Give us evidence or admit that you don't have any.
I seriously do wonder how much more of these conspiracy posts we must endure before a rule is created banning them. There are other discussion boards out there specifically created to deal with fringe subjects like this. Why does it have to be dragged onto a science board?
-
Why do you keep denying the existence of neuropolitics?
Don't you realize that climate change is meant to exist for controlling our social behavior?
Repeating a claim is not evidence for a claim. Give us evidence or admit that you don't have any.
I seriously do wonder how much more of these conspiracy posts we must endure before a rule is created banning them. There are other discussion boards out there specifically created to deal with fringe subjects like this. Why does it have to be dragged onto a science board?
There are a few "serial offenders" who don't seem to know what evidence is.
-
I seriously do wonder how much more of these conspiracy posts we must endure before a rule is created banning them.
Just Chat and That Can't be True are intended for non-science posts. Whoops, almost said non-sense.
-
I seriously do wonder how much more of these conspiracy posts we must endure before a rule is created banning them.
Just Chat and That Can't be True are intended for non-science posts. Whoops, almost said non-sense.
True, but a lot of nonsense gets posted in other bits of the forum, notably "New Theories".
It's also often added as a hijack to sensible discussions in other areas.
-
(https://i.imgflip.com/1gxal0.jpg)
-
True, but a lot of nonsense gets posted in other bits of the forum, notably "New Theories".
It's also often added as a hijack to sensible discussions in other areas.
If I spot any I try to extract it and move or delete it, just as I did on the magnetism question. I'm treating conspiracy theories in just the same way as new theories, but routing to just Chat or can't be true.
-
I'm treating conspiracy theories in just the same way as new theories, but routing to just Chat or can't be true.
Sorry, but there's no such thing as a "conspiracy theory". Independent research is meant to be controversial because it challenges the official narratives, that's all. The "conspiracy label" is mainly promoted by mainstream media and the globalisation mafia.
-
I'm treating conspiracy theories in just the same way as new theories, but routing to just Chat or can't be true.
Sorry, but there's no such thing as a "conspiracy theory". Independent research is meant to be controversial because it challenges the official narratives, that's all. The "conspiracy label" is mainly promoted by mainstream media and the globalisation mafia.
You are right for the wrong reason. Your ramblings here are not a conspiracy theory; they don't make enough sense to be one.
You haven't put forward any sort of link between eugenics and climate change
-
You haven't put forward any sort of link between eugenics and climate change
I disagree. Apparently, the majority of people are either too lazy or stubborn to accept the reality of the social
neuropolitics of climate change. So my guess is that the propaganda machine is very effective on this forum because of people like you or its just easier to accept magical climate changes without questioning it's very own foundations based on eugenics.
-
You haven't put forward any sort of link between eugenics and climate change
And this isn't a myth or magic
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record
-
Sorry, but there's no such thing as a "conspiracy theory". Independent research is meant to be controversial because it challenges the official narratives, that's all. The "conspiracy label" is mainly promoted by mainstream media and the globalisation mafia.
Am I to believe, based on this post, that you accept all claims labelled as "conspiracy theories" to actually be true? You believe that the Earth is both flat and hollow? That there are alien spaceships at Area 51? That both the Moon-landings were a hoax and that astronauts saw UFOs on the Moon?
I disagree.
So in which post of yours did you show us evidence for a link? Before you answer, please do remember that claims are not evidence.
Apparently, the majority of people are either too lazy or stubborn to accept the reality of the social
neuropolitics of climate change.
Or too rational.
So my guess is that the propaganda machine is very effective on this forum because of people like you or its just easier to accept magical climate changes without questioning it's very own foundations based on eugenics.
Why do you expect us to accept your repeated claims if you cannot back them up? All you have done is make assertion after assertion without giving us even the slightest sliver of a reason to accept them as true.
-
Here's the guy who coined the term "useless eaters" standing with Hillary Clinton.
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.infiniteunknown.net%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F12%2FHillary-Clinton-Kissinger.jpg&hash=fa2a2d285617b5da17c2ffdc39955294)
-
And here's the evidence that climate change is connected to Kissinger's eugenics philosophy of culling the "useless eaters":
The ultimate challenge is to shape the common concern of most countries and all major ones regarding the economic crisis, together with a common fear of jihadist terrorism, into a common strategy reinforced by the realization that the new issues like proliferation, energy and climate change permit no national or regional solution.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/12/opinion/12iht-edkissinger.1.19281915.html?pagewanted=all
-
Well, Kissinger is now old enough to be one of the "useless eaters" as he described the elderly.
And the problem with your idea is that climate change isn't a theory (conspiracy or otherwise), it's a fact.
In the interests of balance,
Here he is with Bush
http://nymag.com/news/people/24750/index2.html
and even Carter.
https://pro.magnumphotos.com/C.aspx?VP3=SearchResult&STID=2S5RYDZXT4H7
-
And here's the evidence that climate change is connected to Kissinger's eugenics philosophy of culling the "useless eaters":
That's not evidence that climate change is a conspiracy theory of any kind. When are you going to add in actual evidence? I'm guessing never.
-
That's not evidence that climate change is a conspiracy theory of any kind. When are you going to add in actual evidence? I'm guessing never.
I'm guessing you will never understand the New World Order.
I give up attempting to discuss this with you.
-
I'm guessing you will never understand the New World Order.
I give up attempting to discuss this with you.
You might as well give up on trying to convince any of us. Have you managed to convince even a single person on this board since you started discussing this material?