0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
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 It has been replaced by the social neuropolitics of man-made climate change.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.
Quote from: Sarah PalinClimate change is to this century what eugenics was to the last century.
I have no idea how you've connected those two ideas, given that they deal with two completely different subject matters.
If you cite Sarah Palin as your source on a science web page, you have pretty much lost the argument already.
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
Please don't make discrimination based on the gender. Sexist comments have no place on a science forum.
Quote from: tkadm30 on 20/09/2017 22:47:06You 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=71107That's not eugenics.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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".
Still, I do think that climate change do promote positive eugenics one way or another.
Quote from: tkadm30 on 21/09/2017 10:45:48Still, I do think that climate change do promote positive eugenics one way or another.What do you think that means?
Quote from: Bored chemist on 21/09/2017 19:48:23Quote from: tkadm30 on 21/09/2017 10:45:48Still, 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.
Quote from: tkadm30 on 21/09/2017 21:17:53Quote from: Bored chemist on 21/09/2017 19:48:23Quote from: tkadm30 on 21/09/2017 10:45:48Still, 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.