[tkadm30 (OP)]

Eugenics science is not dead. It has been replaced by the social neuropolitics of man-made climate change.

What do you think?

[tkadm30 (OP)]

Climate change is to this century what eugenics was to the last century.

[puppypower]

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 It has been replaced by the social neuropolitics of man-made climate change.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.

[Colin2B]

I think this not a scientific/technical question on environment, so I'm moving it to just chat.

[Kryptid]

I have no idea how you've connected those two ideas, given that they deal with two completely different subject matters.

[Bored chemist]

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.

[tkadm30 (OP)]

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

[tkadm30 (OP)]

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.

[Kryptid]

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.

[tkadm30 (OP)]

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.

[tkadm30 (OP)]

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.

[Kryptid]

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.

[tkadm30 (OP)]

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?

[Kryptid]

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".

[tkadm30 (OP)]

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.

[Bored chemist]

Still, I do think that climate change do promote positive eugenics one way or another.

What do you think that means?

[tkadm30 (OP)]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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.

[Kryptid]

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.

[tkadm30 (OP)]

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.