Cyborg | Designer-Babies | Futurism | Futurist | Immortality | Longevity | Nanotechnology | Post-Human | Singularity | Transhuman

Ascension – SGCommand – Wikia

 Ascension  Comments Off on Ascension – SGCommand – Wikia
Jun 212016
 

“When the mind is enlightened, the spirit is freed, and the body matters not.” Oma Desala

Daniel Jackson ascends to a higher plane of existence

Ascension is a process that allows beings to be able to separate from their physical bodies and to live eternally as pure energy in a superior plane with agreater amount of knowledge and power. It can be a mental, spiritual or evolutionary processa direct result of obtaining a certain level of wisdom and knowledge as a civilization.

The Ancients were the first race to ascend and some of them, such as Oma Desala, attempted to teach the “lowers” to ascend without the use of technology. Dr. Daniel Jackson speculated that this is what the Earth religion of Buddhism is based on, and that Oma is Mother Nature along with the other Ancients as spirits.

According to research by Dr. Rodney McKay, once the brain achieves 90% synaptic activity, they must achieve an EEG of 0.1 to 0.9 hertz, during which they will learn how to convert their body into energy. If they do not achieve ascension before 96% synaptic activity is achieved, the lower functions of the brain will shut down. Ascension can happen in two ways: spiritually or evolutionary. Both cases, the physical body of a mortal being will become energy (leaving a heap of empty clothes), and a glowing light being will raise up through the ceiling. From then on the ascended being tends to take the form of the glowing light being. (SG1: “Meridian”) (ATL: “Tao of Rodney”)

Oma Desala in ascended form

A being previously or currently Ascended can help a mortal Ascend. The Ancient Oma Desala, found in Earth myths of Mother Nature, helped to Ascend many beings of this form, most significantly Dr. Daniel Jackson, and the entire population of Abydos. In this case, a being does not need to be morally good in the first place, although most Ascended beings would never promote a morally bad person. This happened to Anubis when Oma Ascended him and later realized what a horrible mistake it was. (SG1: “Maternal Instinct”, “Meridian”, “Full Circle”, “Threads”)

An Ori in ascended form

Ascension can also be a physical process, because, essentially, Ascended beings are still “strictly physical”. A human who has the ability to use approximately 90% of their cerebral capacity can learn to Ascend without much problem, gaining more and more power as a mortal (including telekinesis) until the person reaches this point (see Near ascension.) This is related to the myth of which the people only use 10% of their brains, with no real justification. Again, this form of Ascension does not require the being to be good of heart.

Some of the Ancients that Ascended naturally like Mesha reached this point without the aid of technology. Nevertheless, they also developed the DNA resequencer, a device able to make humans so advanced that they could obtain abilities like telekinesis, telepathy, healing, and more. They also created an Ascension machine to hasten the process. (SG1: “Prototype”) (ATL: “Tao of Rodney”)

An Asuran digitally ascending

Since the Atlantis expedition’s first contact with the Asurans, they’ve known that a splinter faction of the Replicators, led by Niam, had the aspiration to ascend, just as their creators the Ancients had done. However, this goal is impossible to achieve because they are machines, not humans.

After the rest of the Asurans and their home world were destroyed, Niam’s faction, now led by Dr. Elizabeth Weir, was able to pursue ascension without worry of any hindrance or fear of reprisal for not conforming. An individual named Koracen discovered a way to “ascend” into subspace as a means of reaching a higher plane. However, that plan didn’t work, as they were trapped in subspace. The experience is described as rather unpleasant, as they were constantly subjected to the background noise and transmissions sent through it. They were eventually forced to abandon that plan and retake corporeal form. (ATL: “Ghost in the Machine”)

Note that this is not technically ascension, as they did not gain any of the abilities of the ascended or move to a higher plane. Instead, those so ascended became, almost literally, ghosts in the machine; that is, a consciousness existing as electrical energy which can control technology. In this state, they could travel through subspace and take control of any machine after a short acclimation period.

According to what Dr. Daniel Jackson was told by Anubis/Jim, “There are many planes of existence between human existence and ascension.” When one exists in any of these planes beyond the corporeal, he is referred to as an Ascended Being because he has “ascended” to a higher plane as a form of intelligent energy. (SG1: “Threads”)

Oma Desala ascends Daniel

It appears that the various planes of existence not only dictate the powers an Ascended Being has, but also his level of understanding of the universe, or his degree of “enlightenment”. The higher level of ascension at which a being exists, the more power, knowledge, and understanding of the universe he possesses. When Dr. Daniel Jackson was helped to ascend by Oma Desala, he was only exposed to certain knowledge and understanding that Oma gave him. He told Colonel Jack O’Neill that all he knew was what Oma told him. She educated him at the “beginning of the journey” until he had managed to acquire all of the knowledge and power that an Ascended Being at Oma’s level could have. Oma had the power to take that knowledge away, but chose instead to bury it along with his memories into his subconscious mind upon returning him to human form. Daniel, during the early days of his ascension, told Jack, “I see things, I understand things, in a way I never could have before.” Near the end of Daniel’s year of ascension, he still did not know everything because he constantly insisted, “All I know is what Oma has taught me. Ascension doesn’t make you all knowing or all powerful. It is just the beginning of the journey.” This journey was Daniel’s Path to Enlightenment, the one on the road to the Great Path, which is most likely the ultimate level of ascension a being can reach. This ultimate level, however, Daniel has implied can never get a being to the level of being complete omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient, but is something that Ascended Beings still endeavor to achieve. Lt. Colonel Cameron Mitchell stated it this way, “Look, just because we know there is some beings on a higher plane of existence than ourselves does not mean there’s not an order of being higher than them.” (SG1: “Abyss”, “Full Circle”, “Origin”)

How far up the planes of existence Daniel reached during his first ascension remains unanswered, but he demonstrated limited capabilities and knowledge during that period. The true extent of his powers were never revealed due to interference from the Others. During his second ascension, however, he was brought into one of the lowest planes of existence where he was self-aware, but did not possess any extraordinary powers or become any further enlightened. Oma described this low level as a “stop along the way” to ascension where Daniel could make the choice as to whether or not he’d like to give ascension another chance but be forbidden from interacting in the corporeal plane or end his life because his body was already dead. Daniel rephrased this choice as to “contemplate my own enlightenment.”

Oma Desala engages Anubis in eternal struggle

Anubis reached a high plane of existence when he tricked Oma into helping him to ascend. Although Anubis held a high degree of enlightenment as to what ascension was, his soul was not pure. The fact that Oma could be deceived proves that ascension doesn’t make one all-knowing, just as Daniel said. The Others sent Anubis down a few planes of existence, what Daniel described as “stuck somewhere between human existence and ascension.” Anubis was still left as a being of energy, but his powers were limited. The Others instructed him that he could only use the knowledge and power he would normally gain as a regular Goa’uld, and Anubis amazingly followed that rule without waver. He gained eternal life through ascension, but now this eternal life is being spent in a never-ending battle with Oma. Oma engaged him in order to prevent him from destroying all life in the Milky Way Galaxy and to take responsibility for breaking the rule, “No lone ascended being shall help a lower ascend.” Although higher ascended beings have the power to kill lower ones, the Others would have stopped her from destroying a lower being, especially as Anubis’s evil was her punishment. She was forced to fully ascend him to the same level as her in order to stop him, but this meant that neither one could win. (SG1: “Threads”)

The City of Celestis on the Plains of Celestis

When the original Ancients, the Alterans, were forced to flee their home galaxy for fear of their lives because of philosophical differences between them and the others of their society known as the Ori, they were on the evolutionary path toward ascension. The Ori, like the Altera, eventually ascended after this separation. The Ori’s galaxy is home to a second evolution of humanity, just as the Milky Way Galaxy is. When Daniel met the Ori through a psychic link with one of these humans, he found out that the Ori claimed that they were humanity’s creators. It is possible that the Ori did in fact create humanity in their home galaxy through the use of technology similar to what the Ancients used in the Milky Way Galaxy after life was nearly wiped out by the Ancient contagion that occurred five to ten million years ago. Anubis/Jim told Daniel that the Ancients used the advanced device on the planet Dakara to reseed life in the galaxy after the plague “some million odd years” ago. The circumstances of the Ori’s re-creation of humanity in their home galaxy is not known, but Daniel assumed that this occurred after all of the Ori had ascended. The Ori manifest themselves in a wall of fire near the temple in the City of Celestis on the Plains of Celestis. (SG1: “Origin”)

Followers of origin prostrating to the Ori

The Ori created a religion with which to interact and manipulate the second evolution of man in their home galaxy. This religion, called Origin, forced a human to relinquish their free will to the Ori with the promise of ascension. The Ori were manipulating humanity because they actually gained power through man’s worship, but were not intending to share that power with their worshipers, so the promise of ascension was a lie. It is hardly a simple thing, but the interrelationships of all living things in the universe is illustrated in this dependence amongst the planes of existence. (SG1: “Origin”)

The Ascended Alterans kept the existence of humanity in the Milky Way Galaxy a secret from the Ori because they feared that the Ori would become too powerful and disturb the balance in their planes of existence. Additionally, they feared that they themselves could become corrupted by the temptation of this power in order to achieve higher levels of enlightenment. Because of this fear, the Ascended Alterans established their non-interference policy. They were not certain what the outcome would be if they were to directly confront the Ori, so they decided that the best way to achieve the balance was through the actions of those opposing the Ori in the lowest plane of existence, the corporeal plane. (SG1: “The Pegasus Project”)

For their part, this work included permitting one of their own to sacrifice his ascension and the chance at further enlightenment to retake human form to help humanity any way he could. Daniel Jackson had decided this was the course of action he was willing to take by retaking human form from both his times as an Ascended Being, but his advanced knowledge was not accessible to him. (SG1: “Full Circle”, “Meridian”, “Threads”) Orlin was given the opportunity to keep some of his advanced knowledge as a human, but that knowledge was not permanent and was life-threatening because the human brain is not physically designed to harbor or use such knowledge. Any of the Ascended Beings who have selected to return to human form are aware that their trip is most likely one-way and that they will not be able to ascend again. (SG1: “Ascension”, “The Fourth Horseman, Part 1”, “The Fourth Horseman, Part 2”)

However, the Ascended are not against interfering in the lower planes if they feel there is a significant enough threat caused by one of their own descended beings. One example is when they sent Morgan Le Fay to stop Merlin’s creation of the Sangraal that could kill Ascended Beings. While Morgan did this as she essentially had no choice, she skirted her orders as she came to believe that Merlin was right and preserved him in stasis so he could one day rebuild the weapon which he and Daniel Jackson did. The only time an Ascended Ancient managed to ever directly interfere in the lower planes is when Morgan herself secretly aided SG-1 against Adria, the last remaining Ori and her followers. As they were in another galaxy with no Ancients, The Others were unable to interfere and Morgan used the free rein on her powers to aid as best she could, ultimately sacrificing herself to destroy Adria after SG-1 reduced her power. (SG1: “The Quest, Part 1”, “The Quest, Part 2”, “The Ark of Truth”)

A group of Ascended beings in the Astral Diner

The superior plane of existence in which the Ascended reside is inhabited by several different Ascended races, but is inhabited in large part by the Ancients, and was also inhabited by the Ori, until they were killed. These two foreign races were in fact of the same species, that is to say, “the first evolution” of humans (Alterans), but they differ due to their opposing beliefs and method of Ascension.

The ascended plane of existence seems to have several “levels” and “ranks”, evident because some Ascended beings must have more abilities than others. Those that have been Ascended for a long time, or who Ascended of their own wisdom, obtain a “higher Ascension”.

The Atlantis expedition stumbled upon a being that was being studied by the Ancients for the purpose of learning how to ascend. This creature seemed to be on a level of existence close to that of Anubis because it’s physical form was that of a large, nebulous black cloud. This creature is the only evidence that beings on a higher plane of existence does not necessitate greater intelligence since this creature seemed only capable of the most basic reasoning. (ATL: “Hide and Seek”)

The rules of the Ascended are that one cannot interfere in the mortal affairs, a rule that is sometimes broken, causing the one who broke the rule to be punished by the other Ascended beings (“The Others”); often, this punishment hurts the mortal world instead of the responsible being, so as to show the transgressor the effects of his actions. The only time someone managed to directly interfere without being stopped was when Morgan Le Fay aided SG-1 against Adria and the Ori followers in the Alteran Home Galaxy using her powers more freely to help them as The Others were not there and were unable to stop her. She clearly broke the rule of non-interference and while some of what she did The Others could possibly have let her do such as send visions to Dr. Daniel Jackson to steer him towards the Ark of Truth, the rest was clearly in violation of the rule such as when she healed a mortally wounded Teal’c so he could aid his friends. (SG1: “The Ark of Truth”)

Replicator Carter processes Daniel’s ascended knowledge

Ascended beings are described as having “all the knowledge and power of the universe”, which is essentially an infinite knowledge (and, possibly, power). However, this does not equate to omniscience, as there are a few means by which Ascended beings can be deceived. The Ancients, for example, apparently hid the existence of the entire Milky Way from their Ori brethren, at least until the Tau’ri made themselves known to the Ori. While ascended, Dr. Daniel Jackson stated that Ascension “doesn’t make one all-knowing,” but rather the individual’s talent in tapping into and understanding the infinite knowledge of the universe at any given moment is substantially increased. This can be done because there are no neurons required to store memory for ascended beings. Replicator Carter tried to download the Ascended knowledge from Daniel Jackson’s subconscious mind, but found that there wasn’t enough memory in the entire Replicator army to hold it. RepliCarter claimed that she and her brethren just needed time to process the information and create more of themselves to house it, but Daniel argued that the knowledge was more than information, but being able to understand on a level that she could never reach due to her corporeal machine status. Unfortunately for RepliCarter, her attempt to access this from Daniel’s mind also gave him access to some of the information which showed him how to enter her mind, overpower her and freeze her army, turning the tide of a losing battle his friends were fighting. (SG1: “Reckoning, Part 1”, “Reckoning, Part 2”, “Origin”)

Daniel Jackson fights Anubis with his Ascended powers

The Ascended plane offers many powers to its inhabitants. Ascended beings have been seen to be capable of miraculous things. Some of these powers include but aren’t limited to:

Morgan confronting Adria on equal strength levels.

Cassandra Fraiser levitating a chess piece

Chaya Sar uses her ascended powers to destroy Wraith Darts

Healing power of near ascended beings at work.

They also have power over other beings like themselves:

Morgan Le Fay talks with Daniel Jackson in Atlantis

With all of these great powers, Ascended Beings might appear to be invincible. Ascended beings have been known to destroy each other. As mentioned above, when Dr. Daniel Jackson was an Ascended Being, he gathered powerful energy orbs to direct at Anubis, and Anubis admits that he would not have survived such an attack. This is further corroborated by Replicator Carter, then Oma herself after she saved Daniel.

Merlin building the Sangraal

The possibility of overpowering an Ascended Being led SG-1 to search for a weapon developed by Merlin, a former Ascended Being who feared the Ori and knew that the Others wouldn’t directly confront them in their plane of existence. The Others claimed that they don’t know what the true outcome would have been if they were to have confronted the Ori directly, but concluded that it could have been very detrimental to all planes of existence. Based on Merlin’s notes, the weapon, called the Sangraal, didn’t actually destroy Ascended Beings, but channeled energy from subspace to interfere with the energy form of the Ascended in their dimension (plane of existence). Daniel stated, “Well, technically, Merlin’s research didn’t refer to killing. A better translation would be ‘neutralizing’ or ‘canceling out’.” In later conversations concerning the operation of Merlin’s weapon, however, the effect of the device was equated with killing the Ascended Beings in the scope of the galaxy wherein the Sangraal was detonated. SG-1 found Merlin, built another weapon, and sent that weapon through the Ori’s Supergate to their home galaxy on board one of their warships. The actual success of this attack was not immediately known, however it was later found to have worked.

Ascended beings can increase their power substantially over other ascended beings by having people in the physical plane worship them. This empowers the worshiped ascended being to such degree that they would be many times stronger than any othernormally ascended being. The Ori have capitalized upon this fact and created the religion of Origin centering around Ori worship with the promise of ascension of the faithful upon death.

This type of empowerment has its weakness, as the ascended being becomes dependent on such a power boost. After a long period of time, they would be substantially weaker than normal when or if this power boost is removed. This was demonstrated when the Ori Priors and Doci were turned from Origin, having been revealed the truth by the Ark of Truth. Adria was instantly weakened to a normal ascended being equal and potentially weaker than her Ancient counterpart Morgan Le Fay, and reduced to making threats instead of before being able to met out instant retribution.

The Sangraal being constructed

In 2006, Dr. Daniel Jackson deciphered the writings left by the Ancient Myrrdin that correspond to the Arthurian legend of Merlin. He was an Ascended Ancient who was investigating how to defeat the Ori, but the Others wanted him to stop. In order to continue without their knowledge, he de-ascended himself again to be human, and continued his investigation in an alternate dimension where Ascended beings could not see (showing again that they are limited and physical beings).

Merlin created a weapon that could ‘neutralize’ an Ascended being. This weapon in itself turns out to correspond to the myths of the Sangraal (Holy Grail). This has opened many more possibilities to defeat to the Ori, and also it suggests much on the nature of an Ascended beingAscension does not make you a god; it merely enhances your ability. Most beings in the universe, nevertheless, still believe all ascended beings to be immortal and invincible. Although the device can only be created by a former ascended being who retains the specific knowledge needed to build it. (SG1: “Arthur’s Mantle”)

Several Pegasus galaxy humans following in the path of the Ancients and trying to ascend

The Ancients in the Milky Way and the Pegasus galaxy had different reasons to Ascend. In the Milky Way, the Ancients were knocked down by a plague that they, with all their technological advances, could not cure; the only way they could avoid death was to Ascend. In the Pegasus Galaxy, they were at war with the Wraith. Once they began to lose the war, many were forced to Ascend to prevent capture. Those that did not Ascend died or escaped through the Stargate to the Milky Way.

In general, Ascension can be used as large-scale ways of escape. When Colonel Jack O’Neill was captured by Ba’al in 2002, Dr. Daniel Jackson tried to persuade him to ascend as it was his only form of escape (at the time). (SG1: “Abyss”)

Cosmically, Ascension seems to be the final goal of all life; at least, this is the idea that is beginning to be considered in the Milky Way. The Free Jaffa Nation attempted to unite with the Ori in its search for Ascension.

Daniel and Bra’tac meditate with a monk in a temple on Kheb

The first known Tau’ri encounter with Ascension was when SG-1 arrived at Kheb, a legendary planet where they found the Harcesis. There, they also found a Buddhist monk in the temple not responding directly to questions, instead quoting Zen Koans. Dr. Daniel Jackson decides to sit with the monk and to learn about Oma Desala, a.k.a. Mother Nature. He learns how the monk can stoke a fire with his mind, and Daniel imitates this effect, only to realize later that it was actually Oma performing this action for him.

When the Goa’uld found the temple, they killed the monk, whom Oma then ascended. As SG-1 left, Oma created lightning and struck down the Jaffa. The storm then disappeared and Oma left through the Stargate. (SG1: “Maternal Instinct”)

A few years later Major Samantha Carter met Orlin, an Ascended being who fell in love with her. Orlin was punished for making a weapon for a foreign race that was under attack. Orlin de-ascended himself so he could be with Carter. He later re-ascended, presumably with help from the other Ancients, when he died. He de-ascended again later to use the knowledge of the Ancients to help Carter to cure an Ori plague on Earth. (SG1: “Ascension”, “The Fourth Horseman, Part 1”, “The Fourth Horseman, Part 2”)

Dr. Daniel Jackson, after ascending, became mortal again after failing to fulfill the non-interference rule by trying to destroy Anubis, a “half-ascended” being who lacked the power of his fully ascended brethren but was still immune to conventional weapons. Having returned to his human form, Daniel was initially totally amnesic, but eventually regained his memories of his human life, although he only remembered brief moments of his time as an Ascended being, and all of his regained memories from this time occurred while he was operating on the lower planes rather than while he was interacting with other Ascended. Despite his conscious loss of memory, Daniel was able to use Ascended knowledge still locked away in his mind to help destroy the Replicators and convinced Oma Desala to take on Anubis in an eternal struggle in order to stop him before he was apparently sent back by The Others, this time retaining his full memories of the experience. (SG1: “Full Circle”, “Fallen”, “Homecoming”, “Orpheus”, “Reckoning, Part 1”, “Reckoning, Part 2”, “Threads”)

Another transgressor was Chaya Sar, an ascended Lantean living in the Pegasus Galaxy. She used the ‘Destructive Energy’ form to defend Proculus from a large Wraith fleet. She was punished in a similar way, protecting Proculus forever without being able to offer aid to anybody else. (ATL: “Sanctuary”)

Rodney McKay accidentally uses the Ascension machine

Ascension Machine

In 2006, an Ancient Ascension machine genetically modified Dr. Rodney McKay’s DNA putting him on the path of Ascension. However, these changes meant that he either needed to release his burdens or die from the changes wrought on his body. Ultimately, Dr. Carson Beckett was given the necessary information by McKay on reversing the machine’s effects, which removed the modifications. (ATL: “Tao of Rodney”)

After being turned into an Asuran, Doctor Elizabeth Weir led a faction searching for a way to Ascend. They eventually tried digital ascension, but instead got trapped in subspace. After returning to physical form, the surviving Asurans were lured into space through a Spacegate and deactivated. However, this was not the end for Weir who was Ascended for real by Ascended Asgard Ran. Weir later guided Teyla Emmagan towards the truth of the Wraith in dreams and saved Rodney McKay’s life from a suicide mission into a sun. For this, she was returned to mortal form, human once more but with no memory. Like Doctor Daniel Jackson, she eventually regained it. (ATL: “Ghost in the Machine”, “The Furies”, “Inheritors”, “Stargate Atlantis: Unascended”, “Stargate Atlantis: The Third Path”)

An Asgard that managed to Ascend before the Asgard began their process of cloning and thus started to suffer genetic degradation. After Doctor Elizabeth Weir was trapped in space as a Replicator, having lured the others through a Spacegate, Ran helped her Ascend, but after she broke the rules to save a friend, had to descend her. However, like Oma Desala and Doctor Daniel Jackson, she made it so that Weir could be found by her friends and regain her memory. The Vanir, a rogue faction of Asgard and the last of the race began hunting for Ran to force her to descend as they believed that her uncorrupted DNA and eggs could be used to reverse the genetic degradation and save the Asgard race. At the suggestion of Weir, Vanir leader Dis traveled to Earth on an old Asgard scoutship where he visited a shrine made by the Ancients where they could be communicated with. Dis made a plea for Ran’s help in saving their race. Even though the Others were unsure of what to do, Ran felt that the extinction of a race was more important than the Ascended rules and returned to mortal form to help, aware that she may not be able to Ascend again. She warns though that even though she has returned to help, it may not be enough to reverse the extensive damage done to the Vanir by their centuries of cloning. (ATL: “Stargate Atlantis: Unascended”, “Stargate Atlantis: The Third Path”)

See the article here:

Ascension – SGCommand – Wikia

 Posted by at 11:13 pm  Tagged with:

Social Darwinism – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Darwinism  Comments Off on Social Darwinism – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jun 172016
 

Social Darwinism is a name given to various theories of society which emerged in the United Kingdom, North America, and Western Europe in the 1870s, and which claim to apply biological concepts of natural selection and survival of the fittest to sociology and politics.[1][2] According to their critics, at least, social Darwinists argue that the strong should see their wealth and power increase while the weak should see their wealth and power decrease. Different social-Darwinist groups have differing views about which groups of people are considered to be the strong and which groups of people are considered to be the weak, and they also hold different opinions about the precise mechanisms that should be used to reward strength and punish weakness. Many such views stress competition between individuals in laissez-faire capitalism, while others are claimed[by whom?] to have motivated ideas of authoritarianism, eugenics, racism, imperialism,[3]fascism, Nazism, and struggle between national or racial groups.[4][5]

The term Social Darwinism gained widespread currency when used after 1944 by opponents of these earlier concepts. The majority of those who have been categorised as social Darwinists did not identify themselves by such a label.[6]

Creationists have often maintained that social Darwinismleading to policies designed to reward the most competitiveis a logical consequence of “Darwinism” (the theory of natural selection in biology).[7] Biologists and historians have stated that this is a fallacy of appeal to nature, since the theory of natural selection is merely intended as a description of a biological phenomenon and should not be taken to imply that this phenomenon is good or that it ought to be used as a moral guide in human society.[citation needed] While most scholars recognize some historical links between the popularisation of Darwin’s theory and forms of social Darwinism, they also maintain that social Darwinism is not a necessary consequence of the principles of biological evolution.

Scholars debate the extent to which the various social Darwinist ideologies reflect Charles Darwin’s own views on human social and economic issues. His writings have passages that can be interpreted as opposing aggressive individualism, while other passages appear to promote it.[8] Some scholars argue that Darwin’s view gradually changed and came to incorporate views from other theorists such as Herbert Spencer.[9] Spencer published[10] his Lamarckian evolutionary ideas about society before Darwin first published his theory in 1859, and both Spencer and Darwin promoted their own conceptions of moral values. Spencer supported laissez-faire capitalism on the basis of his Lamarckian belief that struggle for survival spurred self-improvement which could be inherited.[11]

The term first appeared in Europe in 1877,[12] and around this time it was used by sociologists opposed to the concept.[13] The term was popularized in the United States in 1944 by the American historian Richard Hofstadter who used it in the ideological war effort against fascism to denote a reactionary creed which promoted competitive strife, racism and chauvinism. Hofstadter later also recognized (what he saw as) the influence of Darwinist and other evolutionary ideas upon those with collectivist views, enough to devise a term for the phenomenon, “Darwinist collectivism”.[3] Before Hofstadter’s work the use of the term “social Darwinism” in English academic journals was quite rare.[14] In fact,

… there is considerable evidence that the entire concept of “social Darwinism” as we know it today was virtually invented by Richard Hofstadter. Eric Foner, in an introduction to a then-new edition of Hofstadter’s book published in the early 1990s, declines to go quite that far. “Hofstadter did not invent the term Social Darwinism”, Foner writes, “which originated in Europe in the 1860s and crossed the Atlantic in the early twentieth century. But before he wrote, it was used only on rare occasions; he made it a standard shorthand for a complex of late-nineteenth-century ideas, a familiar part of the lexicon of social thought.”

The term “social Darwinism” has rarely been used by advocates of the supposed ideologies or ideas; instead it has almost always been used pejoratively by its opponents.[6] The term draws upon the common use of the term Darwinism, which has been used to describe a range of evolutionary views, but in the late 19th century was applied more specifically to natural selection as first advanced by Charles Darwin to explain speciation in populations of organisms. The process includes competition between individuals for limited resources, popularly but inaccurately described by the phrase “survival of the fittest”, a term coined by sociologist Herbert Spencer.

While the term has been applied to the claim that Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection can be used to understand the social endurance of a nation or country, social Darwinism commonly refers to ideas that predate Darwin’s publication of On the Origin of Species. Others whose ideas are given the label include the 18th century clergyman Thomas Malthus, and Darwin’s cousin Francis Galton who founded eugenics towards the end of the 19th century.

The term Darwinism had been coined by Thomas Henry Huxley in his April 1860 review of “On the Origin of Species”,[15] and by the 1870s it was used to describe a range of concepts of evolutionism or development, without any specific commitment to Charles Darwin’s own theory.[16]

The first use of the phrase “social Darwinism” was in Joseph Fisher’s 1877 article on The History of Landholding in Ireland which was published in the Transactions of the Royal Historical Society.[12] Fisher was commenting on how a system for borrowing livestock which had been called “tenure” had led to the false impression that the early Irish had already evolved or developed land tenure;[17]

These arrangements did not in any way affect that which we understand by the word ” tenure”, that is, a man’s farm, but they related solely to cattle, which we consider a chattel. It has appeared necessary to devote some space to this subject, inasmuch as that usually acute writer Sir Henry Maine has accepted the word ” tenure ” in its modern interpretation, and has built up a theory under which the Irish chief ” developed ” into a feudal baron. I can find nothing in the Brehon laws to warrant this theory of social Darwinism, and believe further study will show that the Cain Saerrath and the Cain Aigillue relate solely to what we now call chattels, and did not in any way affect what we now call the freehold, the possession of the land.

Despite the fact that social Darwinism bears Charles Darwin’s name, it is also linked today with others, notably Herbert Spencer, Thomas Malthus, and Francis Galton, the founder of eugenics. In fact, Spencer was not described as a social Darwinist until the 1930s, long after his death.[18]

Darwin himself gave serious consideration to Galton’s work, but considered the ideas of “hereditary improvement” impractical. Aware of weaknesses in his own family, Darwin was sure that families would naturally refuse such selection and wreck the scheme. He thought that even if compulsory registration was the only way to improve the human race, this illiberal idea would be unacceptable, and it would be better to publicize the “principle of inheritance” and let people decide for themselves.[19]

In The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex of 1882 Darwin described how medical advances meant that the weaker were able to survive and have families, and as he commented on the effects of this, he cautioned that hard reason should not override sympathy and considered how other factors might reduce the effect:

Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed. The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil. … We must therefore bear the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely that the weaker and inferior members of society do not marry so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage, though this is more to be hoped for than expected.[20]

Herbert Spencer’s ideas, like those of evolutionary progressivism, stemmed from his reading of Thomas Malthus, and his later theories were influenced by those of Darwin. However, Spencer’s major work, Progress: Its Law and Cause (1857), was released two years before the publication of Darwin’s On the Origin of Species, and First Principles was printed in 1860.

In The Social Organism (1860), Spencer compares society to a living organism and argues that, just as biological organisms evolve through natural selection, society evolves and increases in complexity through analogous processes.[21]

In many ways, Spencer’s theory of cosmic evolution has much more in common with the works of Lamarck and Auguste Comte’s positivism than with Darwin’s.

Jeff Riggenbach argues that Spencer’s view was that culture and education made a sort of Lamarckism possible[1] and notes that Herbert Spencer was a proponent of private charity.[1]

Spencer’s work also served to renew interest in the work of Malthus. While Malthus’s work does not itself qualify as social Darwinism, his 1798 work An Essay on the Principle of Population, was incredibly popular and widely read by social Darwinists. In that book, for example, the author argued that as an increasing population would normally outgrow its food supply, this would result in the starvation of the weakest and a Malthusian catastrophe.

According to Michael Ruse, Darwin read Malthus’ famous Essay on a Principle of Population in 1838, four years after Malthus’ death. Malthus himself anticipated the social Darwinists in suggesting that charity could exacerbate social problems.

Another of these social interpretations of Darwin’s biological views, later known as eugenics, was put forth by Darwin’s cousin, Francis Galton, in 1865 and 1869. Galton argued that just as physical traits were clearly inherited among generations of people, the same could be said for mental qualities (genius and talent). Galton argued that social morals needed to change so that heredity was a conscious decision in order to avoid both the over-breeding by less fit members of society and the under-breeding of the more fit ones.

In Galton’s view, social institutions such as welfare and insane asylums were allowing inferior humans to survive and reproduce at levels faster than the more “superior” humans in respectable society, and if corrections were not soon taken, society would be awash with “inferiors”. Darwin read his cousin’s work with interest, and devoted sections of Descent of Man to discussion of Galton’s theories. Neither Galton nor Darwin, though, advocated any eugenic policies restricting reproduction, due to their Whiggish distrust of government.[22]

Friedrich Nietzsche’s philosophy addressed the question of artificial selection, yet Nietzsche’s principles did not concur with Darwinian theories of natural selection. Nietzsche’s point of view on sickness and health, in particular, opposed him to the concept of biological adaptation as forged by Spencer’s “fitness”. Nietzsche criticized Haeckel, Spencer, and Darwin, sometimes under the same banner by maintaining that in specific cases, sickness was necessary and even helpful.[23] Thus, he wrote:

Wherever progress is to ensue, deviating natures are of greatest importance. Every progress of the whole must be preceded by a partial weakening. The strongest natures retain the type, the weaker ones help to advance it. Something similar also happens in the individual. There is rarely a degeneration, a truncation, or even a vice or any physical or moral loss without an advantage somewhere else. In a warlike and restless clan, for example, the sicklier man may have occasion to be alone, and may therefore become quieter and wiser; the one-eyed man will have one eye the stronger; the blind man will see deeper inwardly, and certainly hear better. To this extent, the famous theory of the survival of the fittest does not seem to me to be the only viewpoint from which to explain the progress of strengthening of a man or of a race.[24]

Ernst Haeckel’s recapitulation theory was not Darwinism, but rather attempted to combine the ideas of Goethe, Lamarck and Darwin. It was adopted by emerging social sciences to support the concept that non-European societies were “primitive” in an early stage of development towards the European ideal, but since then it has been heavily refuted on many fronts[25] Haeckel’s works led to the formation of the Monist League in 1904 with many prominent citizens among its members, including the Nobel Prize winner Wilhelm Ostwald.

The simpler aspects of social Darwinism followed the earlier Malthusian ideas that humans, especially males, require competition in their lives in order to survive in the future. Further, the poor should have to provide for themselves and not be given any aid. However, amidst this climate, most social Darwinists of the early twentieth century actually supported better working conditions and salaries. Such measures would grant the poor a better chance to provide for themselves yet still distinguish those who are capable of succeeding from those who are poor out of laziness, weakness, or inferiority.

“Social Darwinism” was first described by Oscar Schmidt of the University of Strasbourg, reporting at a scientific and medical conference held in Munich in 1877. He noted how socialists, although opponents of Darwin’s theory, used it to add force to their political arguments. Schmidt’s essay first appeared in English in Popular Science in March 1879.[26] There followed an anarchist tract published in Paris in 1880 entitled “Le darwinisme social” by mile Gautier. However, the use of the term was very rareat least in the English-speaking world (Hodgson, 2004)[27]until the American historian Richard Hofstadter published his influential Social Darwinism in American Thought (1944) during World War II.

Hypotheses of social evolution and cultural evolution were common in Europe. The Enlightenment thinkers who preceded Darwin, such as Hegel, often argued that societies progressed through stages of increasing development. Earlier thinkers also emphasized conflict as an inherent feature of social life. Thomas Hobbes’s 17th century portrayal of the state of nature seems analogous to the competition for natural resources described by Darwin. Social Darwinism is distinct from other theories of social change because of the way it draws Darwin’s distinctive ideas from the field of biology into social studies.

Darwin, unlike Hobbes, believed that this struggle for natural resources allowed individuals with certain physical and mental traits to succeed more frequently than others, and that these traits accumulated in the population over time, which under certain conditions could lead to the descendants being so different that they would be defined as a new species.

However, Darwin felt that “social instincts” such as “sympathy” and “moral sentiments” also evolved through natural selection, and that these resulted in the strengthening of societies in which they occurred, so much so that he wrote about it in Descent of Man:

The following proposition seems to me in a high degree probablenamely, that any animal whatever, endowed with well-marked social instincts, the parental and filial affections being here included, would inevitably acquire a moral sense or conscience, as soon as its intellectual powers had become as well, or nearly as well developed, as in man. For, firstly, the social instincts lead an animal to take pleasure in the society of its fellows, to feel a certain amount of sympathy with them, and to perform various services for them.[28]

Spencer proved to be a popular figure in the 1880s primarily because his application of evolution to areas of human endeavor promoted an optimistic view of the future as inevitably becoming better. In the United States, writers and thinkers of the gilded age such as Edward L. Youmans, William Graham Sumner, John Fiske, John W. Burgess, and others developed theories of social evolution as a result of their exposure to the works of Darwin and Spencer.

In 1883, Sumner published a highly influential pamphlet entitled “What Social Classes Owe to Each Other”, in which he insisted that the social classes owe each other nothing, synthesizing Darwin’s findings with free enterprise Capitalism for his justification.[citation needed] According to Sumner, those who feel an obligation to provide assistance to those unequipped or under-equipped to compete for resources, will lead to a country in which the weak and inferior are encouraged to breed more like them, eventually dragging the country down. Sumner also believed that the best equipped to win the struggle for existence was the American businessman, and concluded that taxes and regulations serve as dangers to his survival. This pamphlet makes no mention of Darwinism, and only refers to Darwin in a statement on the meaning of liberty, that “There never has been any man, from the primitive barbarian up to a Humboldt or a Darwin, who could do as he had a mind to.”[29]

Sumner never fully embraced Darwinian ideas, and some contemporary historians do not believe that Sumner ever actually believed in social Darwinism.[30] The great majority of American businessmen rejected the anti-philanthropic implications of the theory. Instead they gave millions to build schools, colleges, hospitals, art institutes, parks and many other institutions. Andrew Carnegie, who admired Spencer, was the leading philanthropist in the world (18901920), and a major leader against imperialism and warfare.[31]

H. G. Wells was heavily influenced by Darwinist thoughts, and novelist Jack London wrote stories of survival that incorporated his views on social Darwinism.[32]Film director Stanley Kubrick has been quoted to have held social Darwinist opinions.[33]

Social Darwinism has influenced political, public health and social movements in Japan since the late 19th and early 20th century. Social Darwinism was originally brought to Japan through the works of Francis Galton and Ernst Haeckel as well as United States, British and French Lamarkian eugenic written studies of the late 19th and early 20th centuries.[34] Eugenism as a science was hotly debated at the beginning of the 20th century, in Jinsei-Der Mensch, the first eugenics journal in the empire. As Japan sought to close ranks with the west, this practice was adopted wholesale along with colonialism and its justifications.

Social Darwinism was formally introduced to China through the translation by Yan Fu of Huxley’s Evolution and Ethics, in the course of an extensive series of translations of influential Western thought.[35] Yan’s translation strongly impacted Chinese scholars because he added national elements not found in the original. He understood Spencer’s sociology as “not merely analytical and descriptive, but prescriptive as well”, and saw Spencer building on Darwin, whom Yan summarized thus:

By the 1920s, social Darwinism found expression in the promotion of eugenics by the Chinese sociologist Pan Guangdan. When Chiang Kai-shek started the New Life movement in 1934, he

Nazi Germany’s justification for its aggression was regularly promoted in Nazi propaganda films depicting scenes such as beetles fighting in a lab setting to demonstrate the principles of “survival of the fittest” as depicted in Alles Leben ist Kampf (English translation: All Life is Struggle). Hitler often refused to intervene in the promotion of officers and staff members, preferring instead to have them fight amongst themselves to force the “stronger” person to prevail”strength” referring to those social forces void of virtue or principle.[38] Key proponents were Alfred Rosenberg, who was hanged later at Nuremberg. Such ideas also helped to advance euthanasia in Germany, especially Action T4, which led to the murder of mentally ill and disabled people in Germany.

The argument that Nazi ideology was strongly influenced by social Darwinist ideas is often found in historical and social science literature.[39] For example, the philosopher and historian Hannah Arendt analysed the historical development from a politically indifferent scientific Darwinism via social Darwinist ethics to racist ideology.[40]

By 1985, creationists were taking up the argument that Nazi ideology was directly influenced by Darwinian evolutionary theory.[41] Such claims have been presented by creationists such as Jonathan Sarfati.[42][43][undue weight? discuss]Intelligent design creationism supporters have promoted this position as well. For example, it is a theme in the work of Richard Weikart, who is a historian at California State University, Stanislaus, and a senior fellow for the Center for Science and Culture of the Discovery Institute.[44] It is also a main argument in the 2008 intelligent-design/creationist movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. These claims are widely criticized.[45][46][47][48][49][50] The Anti-Defamation League has rejected such attempts to link Darwin’s ideas with Nazi atrocities, and has stated that “Using the Holocaust in order to tarnish those who promote the theory of evolution is outrageous and trivializes the complex factors that led to the mass extermination of European Jewry.”[51]

Similar criticisms are sometimes applied (or misapplied) to other political or scientific theories that resemble social Darwinism, for example criticisms leveled at evolutionary psychology. For example, a critical reviewer of Weikart’s book writes that “(h)is historicization of the moral framework of evolutionary theory poses key issues for those in sociobiology and evolutionary psychology, not to mention bioethicists, who have recycled many of the suppositions that Weikart has traced.”[48]

Another example is recent scholarship that portrays Ernst Haeckel’s Monist League as a mystical progenitor of the Vlkisch movement and, ultimately, of the Nazi Party of Adolf Hitler. Scholars opposed to this interpretation, however, have pointed out that the Monists were freethinkers who opposed all forms of mysticism, and that their organizations were immediately banned following the Nazi takeover in 1933 because of their association with a wide variety of causes including feminism, pacifism, human rights, and early gay rights movements.[52]

Social Darwinism has many definitions, and some of them are incompatible with each other. As such, social Darwinism has been criticized for being an inconsistent philosophy, which does not lead to any clear political conclusions. For example, The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics states:

Part of the difficulty in establishing sensible and consistent usage is that commitment to the biology of natural selection and to ‘survival of the fittest’ entailed nothing uniform either for sociological method or for political doctrine. A ‘social Darwinist’ could just as well be a defender of laissez-faire as a defender of state socialism, just as much an imperialist as a domestic eugenist.[53]

Social Darwinism was predominantly found in laissez-faire societies where the prevailing view was that of an individualist order to society. As such, social Darwinism supposed that human progress would generally favor the most individualistic races, which were those perceived as stronger. A different form of social Darwinism was part of the ideological foundations of Nazism and other fascist movements. This form did not envision survival of the fittest within an individualist order of society, but rather advocated a type of racial and national struggle where the state directed human breeding through eugenics.[54] Names such as “Darwinian collectivism” or “Reform Darwinism” have been suggested to describe these views, in order to differentiate them from the individualist type of social Darwinism.[3]

Some pre-twentieth century doctrines subsequently described as social Darwinism appear to anticipate state imposed eugenics[3] and the race doctrines of Nazism. Critics have frequently linked evolution, Charles Darwin and social Darwinism with racialism, nationalism, imperialism and eugenics, contending that social Darwinism became one of the pillars of fascism and Nazi ideology, and that the consequences of the application of policies of “survival of the fittest” by Nazi Germany eventually created a very strong backlash against the theory.[51][44]

As mentioned above, social Darwinism has often been linked to nationalism and imperialism.[55] During the age of New Imperialism, the concepts of evolution justified the exploitation of “lesser breeds without the law” by “superior races”.[55] To elitists, strong nations were composed of white people who were successful at expanding their empires, and as such, these strong nations would survive in the struggle for dominance.[55] With this attitude, Europeans, except for Christian missionaries, seldom adopted the customs and languages of local people under their empires.[55]

Peter Kropotkin argued in his 1902 book Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution that Darwin did not define the fittest as the strongest, or most clever, but recognized that the fittest could be those who cooperated with each other. In many animal societies, “struggle is replaced by co-operation”.

It may be that at the outset Darwin himself was not fully aware of the generality of the factor which he first invoked for explaining one series only of facts relative to the accumulation of individual variations in incipient species. But he foresaw that the term [evolution] which he was introducing into science would lose its philosophical and its only true meaning if it were to be used in its narrow sense onlythat of a struggle between separate individuals for the sheer means of existence. And at the very beginning of his memorable work he insisted upon the term being taken in its “large and metaphorical sense including dependence of one being on another, and including (which is more important) not only the life of the individual, but success in leaving progeny.” [Quoting Origin of Species, chap. iii, p. 62 of first edition.]

While he himself was chiefly using the term in its narrow sense for his own special purpose, he warned his followers against committing the error (which he seems once to have committed himself) of overrating its narrow meaning. In The Descent of Man he gave some powerful pages to illustrate its proper, wide sense. He pointed out how, in numberless animal societies, the struggle between separate individuals for the means of existence disappears, how struggle is replaced by co-operation, and how that substitution results in the development of intellectual and moral faculties which secure to the species the best conditions for survival. He intimated that in such cases the fittest are not the physically strongest, nor the cunningest, but those who learn to combine so as mutually to support each other, strong and weak alike, for the welfare of the community. “Those communities”, he wrote, “which included the greatest number of the most sympathetic members would flourish best, and rear the greatest number of offspring” (2nd edit., p. 163). The term, which originated from the narrow Malthusian conception of competition between each and all, thus lost its narrowness in the mind of one who knew Nature.[56]

Noam Chomsky discussed briefly Kropotkin’s views in a July 8, 2011 YouTube video from Renegade Economist, in which he said Kropotkin argued

… the exact opposite [of Social Darwinism]. He argued that on Darwinian grounds, you would expect cooperation and mutual aid to develop leading towards community, workers’ control and so on. Well, you know, he didn’t prove his point. It’s at least as well argued as Herbert Spencer is …[57]

Continued here:

Social Darwinism – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What is Social Darwinism – AllAboutScience.org

 Darwinism  Comments Off on What is Social Darwinism – AllAboutScience.org
Jun 172016
 

QUESTION: What is Social Darwinism?

ANSWER:

Herbert Spencer, a 19th century philosopher, promoted the idea of Social Darwinism. Social Darwinism is an application of the theory of natural selection to social, political, and economic issues. In its simplest form, Social Darwinism follows the mantra of “the strong survive,” including human issues. This theory was used to promote the idea that the white European race was superior to others, and therefore, destined to rule over them.

At the time that Spencer began to promote Social Darwinism, the technology, economy, and government of the “White European” was advanced in comparison to that of other cultures. Looking at this apparent advantage, as well as the economic and military structures, some argued that natural selection was playing out, and that the race more suited to survival was winning. Some even extended this philosophy into a micro-economic issue, claiming that social welfare programs that helped the poor and disadvantaged were contrary to nature itself. Those who reject any and all forms of charity or governmental welfare often use arguments rooted in Social Darwinism.

At its worst, the implications of Social Darwinism were used as scientific justification for the Holocaust. The Nazis claimed that the murder of Jews in World War II was an example of cleaning out the inferior genetics. Many philosophers noted evolutionary echoes in Hitler’s march to exterminate an entire race of people. Various other dictators and criminals have claimed the cause of Social Darwinism in carrying out their acts. Even without such actions, Social Darwinism has proven to be a false and dangerous philosophy.

Scientists and evolutionists maintain that this interpretation is only loosely based on Darwin’s theory of natural selection. They will admit to an obvious parallel between Darwin’s theory of Natural Selection and Spencer’s beliefs. In nature, the strong survive and those best suited to survival will out-live the weak. According to Social Darwinism, those with strength (economic, physical, technological) flourish and those without are destined for extinction.

It is important to note that Darwin did not extend his theories to a social or economic level, nor are any credible evolutionists subscribing to the theories of Social Darwinism. Herbert Spencer’s philosophy is only loosely based on the premises of Darwin’s work.

However, according to evolutionary theory, nature is a “kill-or-be-killed” system. Those that cannot keep up are either left behind or cut off. If evolution, through chance, is solely responsible for life as we now know it, why should that process be countered? If “survival of the fittest” or “kill or be killed” cannot apply in what we define as “decent society,” then, which is wrong, society or evolution? If neither, then how do we explain morality, charity, and compassion? Why drain resources from the strong to support the weak? Certainly, we should be charitable and help those in need.

Though Darwin did not promote Social Darwinism, basic evolutionary theory raises some nagging questions.

What is your response?

Yes, today I am deciding to follow Jesus

Yes, I am already a follower of Jesus

I still have questions

View post:

What is Social Darwinism – AllAboutScience.org

 Posted by at 4:54 am  Tagged with:

Eugenics and You Damn Interesting

 Eugenics  Comments Off on Eugenics and You Damn Interesting
Jun 172016
 

When Charles Darwin published his groundbreaking theory of Natural Selection in 1859, it was received by the public with considerable vexation. Although the esteemed naturalist had been kind enough to explain his theory using mounds of logic and evidence, he lacked the good manners to incorporate the readers preconceived notions of the universe. Nevertheless, many men of science were drawn to the elegant hypothesis, and they found it pregnant with intriguing corollaries. One of these was a phenomenon Darwin referred to as artificial selection: the centuries-old process of selectively breeding domestic animals to magnify desirable traits. This, he explained, was the same mechanism as natural selection, merely accelerated by human influence.

In 1865, Darwins half-cousin Sir Francis Galton pried the lid from yet another worm-can with the publication of his article entitled Hereditary Talent and Character. In this essay, the gentleman-scientist suggested that one could apply the principle of artificial selection to humans just as one could in domestic animals, thereby exaggerating desirable human traits over several generations. This scientific philosophy would come to be known as eugenics, and over the subsequent years its seemingly sensible insights gained approval worldwide. In an effort to curtail the genetic pollution created by inferior genes, some governments even enacted laws authorizing the forcible sterilization of the insane, idiotic, imbecile, feebleminded or epileptic, as well as individuals with criminal or promiscuous inclinations. Ultimately hundreds of thousands of people were forced or coerced into sterilization worldwide, over 65,000 of them in the country which pioneered the eugenic effort: The United States of America.

From the beginning, Sir Francis Galton and his league of extraordinary eugenicists were concerned that the human race was facing an inevitable decline. They worried that advances in medicine were too successful in improving the survival and reproduction of weak individuals, thereby working at odds with natural evolution. Darwin himself expressed some concern regarding such negative selection:

[We] do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. [] Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. [] Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature.

The early proponents of eugenics were also distressed over the observation that the poor segments of an industrialized society tend to have more children than the well-off, an effect now known as the demographic-economic paradox. It was feared that this lopsided fertility would dilute the quality of the human gene pool, leading to the deterioration of socially valuable traits such as intelligence. Indeed, this reversion towards mediocrity was suspected by some historians to be a major contributor to the fall of the Roman Empire. The gloomy prediction of mankinds decline was dubbed dysgenics, and it was considered to be the antithesis of the eugenics movement; but it was not considered inevitable. It was believed that a society could reverse its own genetic decay by reducing breeding among the feebleminded and increasing fertility of the affluent.

The cornerstone of eugenics was that everyone has the right to be well-born, without any predisposition to avoidable genetic flaws. The 1911 edition of The Encyclopdia Britannica looked fondly upon the philosophy, defining it as the organic betterment of the race through wise application of the laws of heredity. Prominent people gravitated towards the idea and engaged in vigorous intellectual intercourse, including such characters as Alexander Graham Bell, Nikola Tesla, H.G. Wells, Winston Churchill, George Bernard Shaw, and US presidents Woodrow Wilson and Calvin Coolidge. Supporters popularized eugenics as an opportunity to create a better world by using natural processes to elevate the human condition, both mentally and physically.

The eugenicists concerns regarding a falloff in average intelligence were not entirely unreasonable. It had long been observed that intelligence is inheritable to a large degree, and history had illustrated that science and culture owe much of their advancement to the contributions of a few gifted people. Ingenious composers such as Beethoven and Bach advanced the art of music, thinkers such as such as Pascal and Newton improved the power of mathematics, and insights from scientists such as Einstein and Hawking have furthered the field of physics. Deprived of any one of those men, todays world would be a measurably poorer place. Even before modern IQ tests existed, it was evident that a populations intelligence adheres to a Gaussian distribution, or bell curve. Consequently, even a small decline in average IQ causes a sharp reduction in the number of geniuses. For instance, if the average intelligence of a community were to decline by five IQ points, the number of individuals in the 130+ Gifted category would drop by 56%. A ten-point decline would result in an 83% drop. Although IQ testing is far from perfect, it is clear that even modest erosion of average IQ could severely compromise the long-term progress of a society.

As a cautionary measure, many US states enacted laws as early as 1896 prohibiting marriage to anyone who was epileptic, imbecile or feeble-minded. But in 1907, eugenics truly passed the threshold from hypothesis into practice when the state of Indiana erected legislation based upon the notion that socially undesirable traits are hereditary:

it shall be compulsory for each and every institution in the state, entrusted with the care of confirmed criminals, idiots, rapists and imbeciles, to appoint upon its staff, in addition to the regular institutional physician, two (2) skilled surgeons of recognized ability, whose duty it shall be, in conjunction with the chief physician of the institution, to examine the mental and physical condition of such inmates as are recommended by the institutional physician and board of managers. If, in the judgment of this committee of experts and the board of managers, procreation is inadvisable and there is no probability of improvement of the mental condition of the inmate, it shall be lawful for the surgeons to perform such operation for the prevention of procreation as shall be decided safest and most effective.

Although this particular law was later overturned, it is widely considered to be the worlds first eugenic legislation. The sterilization of imbeciles was put into practice, often without informing the patient of the nature of the procedure. Similar laws were soon passed elsewhere in the US, many of which withstood the legal gauntlet and remained in force for decades.

Meanwhile the founders of the newly-formed Eugenics Record Office in New York began to amass hundreds of thousands of family pedigrees for genetic research. The organization publicly endorsed eugenic practices, and lobbied for state sterilization acts and immigration restrictions. The group also spread their vision of genetic superiority by sponsoring a series of Fitter Families contests which were held at state fairs throughout the US. Alongside the states portliest pigs, swiftest horses, and most majestic vegetables, American families were judged for their quality of breeding. Entrants pedigrees were reviewed, their bodies examined, and their mental capacity measured. The families found to be most genetically fit were awarded a silver trophy, and any contestant scoring a B+ or higher was awarded a bronze medal bearing the inscription, Yea, I have a goodly heritage.

The eugenics movement took another swerve for the sinister in 1924 when the state of Virginia enacted a matched set of eugenics laws: The Sterilization Act, a variation of the same sterilization legislation being passed throughout the US; and the Racial Integrity Act, a law which felonized marriage between white persons and non-whites. In September of the same year, this shiny new legislation was challenged by a patient at the Virginia State Colony for Epileptics and Feebleminded. Eighteen-year-old Carrie Buck child to a promiscuous mother, and mother to an illegitimate child refused her mandatory sterilization and a legal challenge was arranged on her behalf. A series of appeals ultimately brought the Buck v. Bell case before the Supreme Court of the United States. The Supreme Courts ruling was delivered by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.:

It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubesThree generations of imbeciles are enough.

With the apparent vindication of these myopic eugenics laws, sterilization procedures were ordered by the thousands. Carrie Buck and her daughter Vivian were among them. It was later discovered that Carrie had been become pregnant with Vivian after being raped by her foster parents nephew, and that her commitment into the Colony had been a gambit to preserve the familys reputation. It seems that Carrie was neither feebleminded nor promiscuous, she was merely inconvenient.

These sorts of negative eugenics policies enjoyed widespread adoption in the US and Canada throughout the 1920s and 30s, with some lawmakers contemplating plans to make welfare and unemployment relief contingent upon sterilization. In the years leading up to the Second World War, however, the eugenic philosophy received the endorsement of the Nazis, and their racial hygiene atrocities rapidly dragged the eugenic philosophy from public favor. When Nazi leaders were put on trial for war crimes, they cited the United States as the inspiration for the 450,000 forced sterilizations they conducted. The eugenic laws in the US remained in force, however, and sterilization programs continued quietly for many years thereafter. One by one the state laws were repealed, and by 1963 virtually all US states had dismantled their sterilization legislation but not before 65,000 or so imbeciles, criminals, and fornicators were surgically expelled from the gene pool. As for the legal precedent of Buck v. Bell, it has yet to be officially overruled.

Even with the shifts in public opinion, concerns regarding the decline of the species still remained. It was believed that certain undesirable diseases could be reduced or eliminated from humanity through well-informed mate selection, including such maladies as hypertension, obesity, diabetes, heart disease, muscular dystrophy, cystic fibrosis, hemophilia, and certain types of cancer. In an effort to improve general quality of life, some scientists hypothesized that the ideal way to save humanity would be for healthy and attractive women to breed with men of science. Unfortunately, no orgy of intellectuals ensued.

In 1980, millionaire inventor Robert Klark Graham took a similar positive eugenics approach when he established the Repository for Germinal Choice in an underground bunker in Escondido, California. His goal was to procure and propagate the crme de la crme of genius DNA. It was his earnest hope that this institution would spawn thousands of gifted children to offset the unbridled copulation among the retrograde population. For nineteen years he courted the semen of Nobel Prize laureates, prosperous scientists, Olympic gold medalists, or anyone with a proven high IQ. Even as news reports decried Grahams scheme to produce a master race of superbabies, hundreds of pre-screened women made the pilgrimage to his fortress of fertility. Owing to the popularity of the Repository and the stiff requirements demanded of the donors, there was never quite enough sperm on hand, and the founder was forced to spend much of his time seeking brilliant men to come to his aid.

Graham died in 1997, aged 90, and within two years his reservoir of super-sperm dried up due to lack of funding. Reports vary regarding the exact number of babies produced by the Repository for Germinal Choice, but at least 215 were born in almost two decades of operation. Only a few of the offspring have since come forward as products of the Repository, and though they tend to exhibit intellectual and physical excellence, the sample is too small to draw any concrete conclusions. Time will tell whether these superbabies are secretly plotting to enslave humanity for their own diabolical ends.

The breeding behaviors of humans remains of utmost interest to geneticists today. In Israel, the Dor Yeshorim organization was founded to provide genetic screenings for couples considering marriage. If it is discovered that both the man and woman carry the recessive gene for Tay-Sachs disease a genetic defect which causes a slow, painful death within a childs first five years the couple are advised against marrying. The same process screens for several other hereditary diseases which are common among Jews, and owing to this eugenic guidance, the number of affected individuals has been reduced considerably. A similar screening system has been successful in nearly eradicating the disease thalassemia on the island of Cyprus. Such applications align with the original vision of eugenics before it became distorted by misguided minds: voluntary, altruistic, and based upon scientifically measurable criteria. Unfortunately the imperfections in screening methods have occasionally led to bizarre wrongful life lawsuits, where disabled individuals seek compensation for their unprevented afflictions.

It is only a matter of time until advances in genetic engineering place true designer babies within our grasp, and because the offspring of such offspring would receive a complement of tweaked genes, they fall well within the realm of eugenics. It seems that the eugenic philosophy of intelligent evolution is inseparable from humanitys future and we have only just begun to open the massive ethical worm-cans. Historian Daniel Kevles from Yale University suggests that eugenics is akin to the conservation of natural resources; both can be practiced horribly so as to abuse individual rights, but both can be practiced wisely for the betterment of society. There is no doubt that the forced sterilizations in the name of eugenics were an indefensible trespass upon the rights of individuals; but considering the value of programs like Dor Yeshorim, and the potential of ideas such as the Repository for Germinal Choice, one must be careful not to throw out the superbaby with the bathwater.

The rest is here:
Eugenics and You Damn Interesting

 Posted by at 4:50 am  Tagged with:

Debate Topic: Eugenics | Debate.org

 Eugenics  Comments Off on Debate Topic: Eugenics | Debate.org
Feb 232016
 

+In Regards To Noncoding DNA+ My opponent states that noncoding DNA has the functions of “1. Regulation of gene expression during development 2. Enhancers for transcription of proximal genes 3. Silencers for suppression of transcription of proximal genes 4. Regulate translation of proteins” Would these also not be simplified? These introns have the “function” of marking DNA, but with an extremely bulky price. Markers for DNA could be extremely more simple just by taking out the large, unused middle section of these DNA strains. With this loss, cell division would be exponentially faster (because DNA replication uses a large portion of that time) and would allow for less errors to occur in transcoding (which could stem the cause of diseases, mental and physical).

+In Regards To Human Vices+ I guess this is also a debatable topic, but I would say that vices come from faulty mental processes, correct? These mental processes are controlled by the brain and the nerves that process information. I would say that faulty mental processes would stem from a bad interpretation of the result of the actions of the individual or from a cloudy interpretation of the facts in which the body is given a faulty signal. Addictions could become regulated as understanding of the genetic implications in the nervous system becomes evident. Since addictions are a result of dependence on that substance or the substantial release of dopamine in an action. You could effect the reasons the body produces dopamine and instead make such vices extremely unpleasant for the individual in question. (I understand that this is a bit far into the field of theoretics like a lot of my claims)

+In Regards To Social and Pragmatic Concerns+ In concern of genetic liability, I agree with my opponent. If the geneticists ruin a child’s life, then I believe that that geneticist is liable. However, I have two points. One is that you assuming that the mistake would be permanent. It is a known fact that viruses can be used in genetic engineering, as they essentially carry and inject DNA into all of the cells in the body. With a bit of research (and a lot less than would be required to make eugenics a reality), we could manipulate the DNA the virus injects and the cells it targets. With differentiation, the cells that would harm the child would usually (except in case of severe genetic butchering) be in a specific targeted area. The fixing of the mistakes would be simple. Also, I am saying that by the time any human trials would be performed, the genetic manipulation process would be perfected to an intense degree (as perfection would be needed to dare risk the life of a human for enhancing purposes). In concern of discrimination, I believe my opponent misinterpreted what I said. I was saying that the extent of discrimination wouldn’t be increased, and would probably decrease. As with ignorance, comes discrimination (possibly another debatable topic). Eugenetically-induced humans would be far from ignorant as their brain capacity would be increased and knowledge could probably even be implanted. In regards to the disruption of natural selection, Eugenetics would just speed up the evolutionary process. Think for a second about what sets humans apart. I would say it is self-evolution. We have the unique ability to use tools to our desires and ends. Eugenics would just be an extension of this gift to an even greater degree. And, you must consider that other species are adapting too. Soon, we will be superseded by another species, if we don’t learn how to directly evolve ourselves and keep ahead of any evolutionary flow.

+In Regards to Population Growth+ In concern of overcrowding Earth, I must point towards the space program. By the time we have advanced science to the point of eugenics becoming a reality, do you not think we will have advanced to the point of terraforming Mars (which I must say is already an endeavor which we started planning). There is lots of space in the galaxy that is sustainable for human growth. Already sciences have pinpointed lots of exoplanets that have a possibility of sustaining life.

+In Regards to Interfering with Nature+ I have two points to make. The first is that survival of the fittest (nature’s law) states, simply that the best survive. So, Eugenics would be the purest form of this law. We would literally be making ourselves the best that could ever possibly live, which is what human nature dictates us to try to do. The second is that the reason we take a backseat to nature is because we don’t understand it very deeply. We don’t understand most of the systems that occur in nature so we simply say “Don’t mess with Nature.” But once you realize and understand nature to a far degree, you can tame Nature. In the time Eugenics could be possible, it is also the time that ecology would be a very complete science and provide a deep understanding into Nature and our irrational fear of it.

+In Regards to Monetary Concern+ On the topic of monetary concern, I will simply allude to a television or a computer. When they first came out, they were inefficient and extremely pricey. As time went on (and not much time), more and more people got them in their homes. Now, if you ask a group of kids who have a tv or computer in their house, a lot more than a few will raise their hands. My opponent made a fantastic point about the taxing of eugenics as a public good, and I completely agree with him. However, if it became a consumer item, it would spread and become cheaper in order to increase the clientele, until the process is entirely common.

+In Regards to an Allusion to Crude, Immoral Eugenics+ The eugenics my opponent talks about that occured in Japan, Germany, and in the Buck v. Bell trial are extremely crude, deformed forms of what I am referring to. So much, in fact, that I believe that the process should take a different term. The crude eugenics he refers were the butchering and erasing of people with physical or mental hindrances or, more commonly, because of their race. My plan would kill no one, and holds infinite promise.

+In Conclusion+ In conclusion, I would like to state that this process holds so many promises. So many problems would be solved that the ones described here almost seem trivial. However, they are important problems. I believe Con is clouded in his views. he is scared of change and what it brings with it, but I say that not only is change healthy, but it is essential to life as we know it. This is not an atrocity. Eugenics would be perfected in the laboratory over many years. Animal trials will be done and human tissues will be tested. This process is not gruesome and shouldn’t be thought of that way. Eugenics is the next step in the evolutionary chain. The question is, are you going to be part of the next generation of humans or are you going to become extinct?

In Round 2, PRO postulates that “DNA could be extremely more simple just by taking out the large, unused middle section of these DNA strains. With this loss, cell division would be exponentially faster (because DNA replication uses a large portion of that time) and would allow for less errors to occur in transcoding.” Of course, that is all theoretical, just as it was theoretical that junk DNA was junk.

The science is in, and within the so-called junk DNA, transposons arrange and influence thousand of strands of DNA, as a kind of cut and paste function that NATURALLY occurs, and it’s importance is immeasurable. I find PRO’s theories on removing non-coding DNA dangerous, as he lacks both the credentials and the wherewithal to be making assertions like this. “Junk DNA” is not junk, and removing large segments of DNA would obviously have deleterious effects. [1][2][3]

PRO proceeds to graciously answer my request for how he proposes to rid the world of human vice. Again, however, PRO does not offer anything beyond his own theoretical musings, with zero scientific justification to back them up, as he oversimplifies human vice and overstates the role of genes. What we refer to as “vice,” and how it all happens, is a complex ballet between nature and nurture in tandem with one another.

Some of the most compelling studies to conclude that nurture is as important as nature comes from separated hereditary twin research. Twin studies have been made to determine whether hereditary is the leading factor, or if it’s the environment. The results have shown that it’s basically an even amount of influence on a person. Separated twins often share common interests in food, struggle or succeed in math, have natural athleticism, and have similarities in temperament, tempo, and ways of doing things. The effects of nurture, however, show their working habits, and thoughts; whereas one twin might be liberal, the other conservative. How they view and respond to the world, however, reflects more upon how they were raised. Consequently, this is what affects serial killers and other crimes of ill-repute more than nature. They had similarities due to heredity, but they often have marked differences because they grew up in two very different environments.

Life isn’t as simple as DNA, lest humans are merely a sum of their parts. I doubt very seriously that if we were to take one of PRO’s perfect humans who have allegedly been genetically rid of vice, and tortured them for the first 10 years of their life, that they would be well adjusted human beings. They’d be homicidal like anyone else. Our external experiences are equally as important as our genetic makeup. [4]

The next portion of the debate focuses on liability of researchers who genetically alter a zygote. I had previously asked if they would be held accountable for any mistakes made when, say, they attempted to make one of PRO’s superhuman with deformities. PRO thinks that, however, we can simply go back and make changes like we’re changing oil or changing out a tire. That is science fiction. You can’t just sit somebody down in a chair and change their DNA, that would be absurd. The whole eugenic process must occur on the zygote level, that is, an inseminated ovum is extracted from a mother’s womb and researchers study the genome and tweak it, a priori, not posteriori. Of course, even that is a gross oversimplification of the process, but PRO’s insinuation that we can correct problems later is based on pure fantasy.

At most we can do is something known as “gene therapy,” which on a very limited basis, inserts healthy genes in to diseased ones. Gene therapy has not yet been approved because it is in the clinical stages.

PRO further postulates, in regards to my point of rampant population growth, that In concern of overcrowding Earth, I must point towards the space program.” And so we see PRO using another science fiction to cover the other. There are no definitive plans for humans to move to the moon, Mars, or anywhere else in the solar system. Just because NASA entertains the theoretical possibility does not mean that one can rely on that as an answer to a troubling concern. As far as I’m concerned, that’s a non-answer to my legitimate question. I trust the reader will render the same judgment.

In regards to nature, he made the following comment: “But once you realize and understand nature to a far degree, you can tame Nature” PRO seems to think that humans can and should control nature, simply because humans are intelligent. Everything on planet earth seems to be at his disposal for manipulation. What about nature is there to “tame” anyhow? There is no right or wrong with nature, it just is. Humans, continually altering nature, are constantly endagnering the very nature we need to survive and share a symbiotic relationship with. Global warming and nuclear holcausts are just two examples of how anthropogenic efforts intended to help us, end up hurting ourselves and nature.

PRO then assures me that his version of eugenics is nothing like what occurred in Germany, Japan, or in America with Buck v. Bell. He states that those people were viewed as hindrances, which is why they wanted to eradicate them. But is this not what PRO wants too? Does he not desire a race of people without weakness? His first post in Round 1 makes it clear that he does in fact want a world free from the ills of society. Sure, PRO may not desire to kill the sick and the lame, but the slippery slope of eugenics is that it’s thus far been the reality. He may not want that, but who’s to say that his protege won’t? Or the government?

We must remember that all of the atrocities I pointed were foisted on us under the pretense of benefiting society. At what cost? Genocide? Discrimination? The fact that the only recorded cases of eugenic programs focused on these makes it more than relevant to question the future of it. I don’t think that is being overly-paranoid.

=== FINAL CONCLUSION ===

To be fair, I do understand the world that PRO wants. I certainly do not believe that he has any malicious intent, and as I stated earlier, I appreciate his enthusiasm and interest in science. His candor on the matter is much appreciated as well. Be that as it may, what troubles me is the lack of substance put forth to some of my legitimate concerns. I do not feel that PRO properly addressed my fiscal concerns, the bio-ethical concern, the over-population concern, the penchant to manipulate nature, or any other argument I set forth. PRO claims that I am scared of change, but this is simply not true.

All scientific efforts are in the interest of improvement, which I do not have a problem with, provided it is carefully dissected and we do not run in to it headlong with reckless abandonment. PRO simply wants humans to take the reigns as nature itself, making a grandiose claim that eugenics is the next evolutionary step. Evolution, in case any forgot, is an unguided process. The very act of manipulating nature to achieve selfish ends is the non-epitome of evolution. If that’s not playing God, then I don’t what is. To be so arrogant to think that one can usurp nature is playing the fool. It is a dangerous prospect that has already proved its self-destruction.

In closing, I want to again thank my opponent for such an interesting and provocative debate. I think he has a bright future at DDO, but nonetheless I think I have created a strong case of reasonable doubt. I trust the voter will see how I refuted his points.

For this reason, sensible voters votes CON! Resolution negated.

=== SOURCES ===

1. http://www.sciencedaily.com… 2. http://www.sciencedaily.com… 3. http://www.sciencedaily.com… 4. http://wilderdom.com…

See the original post here:
Debate Topic: Eugenics | Debate.org

Origins of Eugenics: From Sir Francis Galton to Virginias …

 Eugenics  Comments Off on Origins of Eugenics: From Sir Francis Galton to Virginias …
Oct 232015
 

Sir Francis Galton. Courtesy of the American Philosophical Society. [2.1]

ENLARGE [2.2] Faces and Races, illustration from a eugenical text, Racial History of Mankind. Courtesy of Special Collections, Pickler Memorial Library, Truman State University.

[2.3] Harry H. Laughlin and Charles Davenport at the Eugenics Record Office. Courtesy of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Archives.

Sir Francis Galton first coined the term eugenics in 1883. Put simply, eugenics means well-born. Initially Galton focused on positive eugenics, encouraging healthy, capable people of above-average intelligence to bear more children, with the idea of building an improved human race. Some followers of Galton combined his emphasis on ancestral traits with Gregor Mendels research on patterns of inheritance, in an attempt to explain the generational transmission of genetic traits in human beings.

Negative eugenics, as developed in the United States and Germany, played on fears of race degeneration. At a time when the working-class poor were reproducing at a greater rate than successful middle- and upper-class members of society, these ideas garnered considerable interest. One of the most famous proponents in the United States was President Theodore Roosevelt, who warned that the failure of couples of Anglo-Saxon heritage to produce large families would lead to race suicide.

The center of the eugenics movement in the United States was the Eugenics Record Office (ERO) at Cold Spring Harbor, New York. Biologist Charles Davenport established the ERO, and was joined in his work by Director Harry H. Laughlin. Both men were members of the American Breeders Association. Their view of eugenics, as applied to human populations, drew from the agricultural model of breeding the strongest and most capable members of a species while making certain that the weakest members do not reproduce.

Eugenicists attempted to demonstrate the power of heredity by constructing pedigree charts of defective families. These charts were used to scientifically quantify the assertion that human frailties such as profligacy and indolence were genetic components that could be passed from one generation to the next. Two studies were published that charted the propensity towards criminality, disease, and immoral behavior of the extended families of the Jukes and the Kallikaks. Eugenicists pointed to these texts to demonstrate that feeblemindedness was an inherited attribute and to reveal how the care of such degenerates represented an enormous cost to society.

The ERO promoted eugenics research by compiling records or pedigrees of thousands of families. Charles Davenport created The Family History Book, which assisted field workers as they interviewed families and assembled pedigrees specifying inheritable family attributes which might range from allergies to civic leadership. Even a propensity for carpentry or dress-making was considered a genetically inherited trait. Davenport and Laughlin also issued another manual titled How to Make a Eugenical Family Study to instruct field workers in the creation of pedigree charts of study subjects from poor, rural areas or from institutionalized settings. Field workers used symbols to depict defective conditions such as epilepsy and sexual immorality.

The American Eugenics Society presented eugenics exhibits at state fairs throughout the country, and provided information encouraging high-grade people to reproduce at a greater rate for the benefit of society. The Society even sponsored Fitter Family contests.

ENLARGE [2.4] Kallikak family of New Jersey Normal and Degenerate Lines (enlarge to view additional eugenical pedigree charts). Courtesy of Paul Lombardo.

ENLARGE [2.5] Eugenics Display. Courtesy of the American Philosophical Society.

[2.6] Winners of Fittest Family Contest. Courtesy of the American Philosophical Society.

[2.7] Harry H. Laughlin photograph. Courtesy of American Philosophical Society.

ENLARGE [2.8] Comparative Intelligence Chart. Courtesy of the American Philosophical Society.

ENLARGE [2.9] Virginias Racial Integrity Act of 1924 (enlarge to view additional Virginia legislative acts). Courtesy of Special Collections, Pickler Memorial Library, Truman State University.

In 1914, Harry H. Laughlin attended the first Race Betterment Conference, sponsored by J. H. Kellogg. The same year, in his Model Sterilization Law, Laughlin declared that the socially inadequate of society should be sterilized. This Model Law was accompanied by pedigree charts, which were used to demonstrate the hereditary nature of traits such as alcoholism, illegitimacy, and feeblemindedness. Laughlin asserted that passage of these undesirable traits to future generations would be eradicated if the unfortunate people who possessed them could be prevented from reproducing. In 1922 Laughlins Model Law was included in the book Eugenical Sterilization in the United States. This book compiled legal materials and statistics regarding sterilization, and was a valuable reference for sterilization activists in states throughout the country.

Proponents of eugenics worked tirelessly to assert the legitimacy of this new discipline. For Americans who feared the potential degradation of their race and culture, eugenics offered a convenient and scientifically plausible response to those fears. Sterilization of the unfit seemed a cost-effective means of strengthening and improving American society.

By 1924 Laughlins influence extended in several directions. He testified before Congress in support of the Immigration Restriction Act to limit immigration from eastern and southern Europe. Laughlin influenced passage of this law by presenting skewed data to support his assertion that the percentage of these immigrant populations in prisons and mental institutions was far greater than their percentage in the general population would warrant.

Laughlin also provided guidance in support of Virginias Racial Integrity Act, which made it illegal for whites in Virginia to marry outside their race. The act narrowly defined who could claim to be a member of the white race stating that the term white person shall apply only to such person as has no trace whatever of any blood other than Caucasian. Virginia lawmakers were careful to leave an escape clause for colleagues who claimed descent from Pocahontasthose with 1/16 or less of the blood of the American Indian would also count as white.

The language of Laughlins Model Sterilization Act was used in Virginias Eugenical Sterilization Act to legalize compulsory sterilizations in the state. This legislation to rid Virginia of defective persons was drafted by Aubrey E. Strode, a former member of the Virginia General Assembly, at the request of longtime associate, Albert Priddy, who directed the Virginia Colony for the Epileptic and Feebleminded in Lynchburg, Virginia.

2004 Claude Moore Health Sciences Library

Excerpt from:
Origins of Eugenics: From Sir Francis Galton to Virginias …

 Posted by at 9:44 am  Tagged with:

The Best Definition of Singularity

 The Singularity  Comments Off on The Best Definition of Singularity
Sep 082015
 

The term Singularity has many definitions.

The everyday English definition of Singularity is a noun that designates the quality of being one of a kind, strange, unique, remarkable or unusual.

For a more specific definition of Singularity we can search The Wiktionary where we get the following five Singularity definitions:

1. the state of being singular, distinct, peculiar, uncommon or unusual 2. a point where all parallel lines meet 3. a point where a measured variable reaches unmeasurable or infinite value 4. (mathematics) the value or range of values of a function for which a derivative does not exist 5. (physics) a point or region in spacetime in which gravitational forces cause matter to have an infinite density; associated with Black Holes

What we are most interested in, however, is the definition of Singularity as a technological phenomenon — i.e. the Technological Singularity. Here we can also find a variety of subtly different interpretations of the definition of Singularity.

John von Neumann was quoted as saying that “the ever accelerating progress of technology … gives the appearance of approaching some essential singularity in the history of the race beyond which human affairs, as we know them, could not continue.” His definition of the Singularity was that the Singularity is the moment beyond which “technological progress will become incomprehensively rapid and complicated.”

Vernor Vinge introduced the term Technological Singularity in his science fiction novel Marooned in Realtime(1986) and later developed the concept in his essay the Coming Technological Singularity (1993). His definition of Singularity is widely known as the event horizon thesis and in essence says that trans or post-human minds will imply a weirder future than we can imagine:

“Within thirty years, we will have the technological means to create superhuman intelligence. Shortly after, the human era will be ended. […] I think it’s fair to call this event a singularity. It is a point where our models must be discarded and a new reality rules. As we move closer and closer to this point, it will loom vaster and vaster over human affairs till the notion becomes a commonplace. Yet when it finally happens it may still be a great surprise and a greater unknown.”

I.J. Good, who greatly influenced Vinge himself, never used the term Singularity itself. However, what Vinge called Singularity Good called intelligence explosion and by that he meant a positive feedback cycle within which minds will make technology to improve on minds which once started will rapidly surge upwards and create super-intelligence. This definition of Singularity is also known as the intelligence explosion hypothesis.

Ray Kurzweil is associated with the third and most popular interpretation of the Technological Singularity, often referred to as the accelerating change thesis. In his book The Singularity Is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology Kurzweil defined the Technological Singularity as:

“… a future period during which the pace of technological change will be so rapid, its impact so deep, that human life will be irreversibly transformed. Although neither utopian nor dystopian, this epoch will transform the concepts that we rely on to give meaning to our lifes, from our business models to the cycle of human life, including death itself.”

Kevin Kelly, founder of Wired Magazine

Singularity is the point at which “all the change in the last million years will be superseded by the change in the next five minutes.”

James Martin, a world-renowned leading futurist, computer scientist, author, lecturer and, among many other things, the largest donor in the history of Oxford University.

Singularity “is a break in human evolution that will be caused by the staggering speed of technological evolution.”

Socrates

Since all of the above refer to the same broad occurrence, I will simply define the Technological Singularity as the event, or sequence of events, likely to occur at or after the birth of Artificial Intelligence. (especially when AI surpasses human intelligence)

If anything, it has to be clear that we really do not know what the Singularity is (or will be) so we are just using the term to show (or hide) our own ignorance.

For more on this topic check out 17 Definitions of the Technological Singularity

Do you agree or disagree with the content of this page? Do you want to improve it? Do you want to post some great singularity content of your own? Why not share it here at Singularity Symposium?!

Click below to see contributions from other visitors to this page…

THE singularitiy, not the tech one. Not rated yet I am puzzled that THE singularity is barely mentioned on this site – the singularity before which time, space, matter and energy did not exist – (not

Singuarity or Chaos?Not rated yet Perhaps it will be the time when the number of recongized, recorded & real-time shared “patterns” will be so unfathomably large that all around “us” will

Singularity And The Infinite InvisibleNot rated yet The Universe continues to expand from its point of origin (Alpha point) since its inception at the Big Bang. As such, time itself expands along with it,

D’Count Lessismore of Moran-OvaNot rated yet D&D’s take on all this is: That super AI equals human irrelevance. The soon to come very few super power leaders will voraciously control

The third factor of intelligenceNot rated yet I am thinking of a new theory. At least to me it is new. I am thinking of the point when artificial intelligence is measured as equal or greater than human

The SarkhhoobadNot rated yet Singularity is best explained by the “sarkhoobad”, a mysterious phenomenon which if unraveled would shed light on many of the difficult to explain questions

bliss to ignorance ratioNot rated yet singularity transcends human comprehension as a linear event, therefore if it occurs we will be incapable of detecting its existence. time, place and

Albert Not rated yet I agree that human evolution is heading in this direction, namely trans humanism. Earth will probably experience another extinction event, so humans should

Time TravelNot rated yet I do not believe that there is much more to be done technologically (in a vastly more incomprehensible way) than what has already transpired with the exceptions

Ananda Jaisingh, VedantinNot rated yet Singularity means Brahman, satyam gyanam anantam, brahman as it is the source of all knowledge and therefore must be conscious, without limit or boundary,

Noone ScientistNot rated yet Singularity is the initial point which everthing that exist, has existed and will exist, is acted upon by the magic magnetic first particle of matter,

singularityNot rated yet We would not be able to recognise a singularity in a future sense, we would experience the now or the present event prior to the singularity,then pass

Mr. Ronald finn.Not rated yet Singularity is where everything meets you, no matter where you are or whatever you are doing it still relates to you and only you. A single direction without

Dr.Not rated yet A singularity is a point in the future where an intelligence explosion takes place.

Splitting of the SpeciesNot rated yet Single body, many minds vs many bodies single minds. Singularity? Iit means individualism while joining with many others in a single unit. Single does

Margie Call ) artistNot rated yet If because of exponential growth, and thoughts are things it seems to me everything would get so entangled that there will be a big bang that converts

Paul BennettNot rated yet In the “Electric Kool-aid Acid Test” it is ‘said’ that you are either “on the bus” or “off the bus” in the event of a technological singularity you will

George Anstadt MD FACPMNot rated yet the Singularity: When the relentless drive of DNA to survive commands a being with the power of artificial intelligence.

Good, Bad, WeirdNot rated yet The Singularity, as defined above, is an unknown unknown. That means this whole thing is a random event. In the future there is a point, which statistically

Continuation of the Human RaceNot rated yet The essence of what we call the human race has to be evolved into a form of transmittable energy that will transcend the limits of the observable universe.

The Universal Grand IllusionNot rated yet This will be the point when the self-absorbed intellectual elites reach the apex of the Ego, becoming convinced that we have fully digested the essence

human beingNot rated yet singularity is the moment when we have the capacity to understand all knowledge from the past and from the future in the present

Click here to write your own.

Here is the original post:

The Best Definition of Singularity

 Posted by at 6:44 pm  Tagged with:

Eugenics in the United States – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Eugenics  Comments Off on Eugenics in the United States – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Sep 072015
 

Early proponents

The American eugenics movement was rooted in the biological determinist ideas of Sir Francis Galton, which originated in the 1880s. Galton studied the upper classes of Britain, and arrived at the conclusion that their social positions were due to a superior genetic makeup.[8] Early proponents of eugenics believed that, through selective breeding, the human species should direct its own evolution. They tended to believe in the genetic superiority of Nordic, Germanic and Anglo-Saxon peoples; supported strict immigration and anti-miscegenation laws; and supported the forcible sterilization of the poor, disabled and “immoral”.[9] Eugenics was also supported by African Americans intellectuals such as W. E. B. Du Bois, Thomas Wyatt Turner, and many academics at Tuskegee University, Howard University, and Hampton University; however they believed the best blacks were as good as the best whites and “The Talented Tenth” of all races should mix.[10] W. E. B. Du Bois believed “only fit blacks should procreate to eradicate the race’s heritage of moral iniquity.”[10][11]

The American eugenics movement received extensive funding from various corporate foundations including the Carnegie Institution, Rockefeller Foundation, and the Harriman railroad fortune.[6] In 1906 J.H. Kellogg provided funding to help found the Race Betterment Foundation in Battle Creek, Michigan.[8] The Eugenics Record Office (ERO) was founded in Cold Spring Harbor, New York in 1911 by the renowned biologist Charles B. Davenport, using money from both the Harriman railroad fortune and the Carnegie Institution. As late as the 1920s, the ERO was one of the leading organizations in the American eugenics movement.[8][12] In years to come, the ERO collected a mass of family pedigrees and concluded that those who were unfit came from economically and socially poor backgrounds. Eugenicists such as Davenport, the psychologist Henry H. Goddard, Harry H. Laughlin, and the conservationist Madison Grant (all well respected in their time) began to lobby for various solutions to the problem of the “unfit”. Davenport favored immigration restriction and sterilization as primary methods; Goddard favored segregation in his The Kallikak Family; Grant favored all of the above and more, even entertaining the idea of extermination.[13] The Eugenics Record Office later became the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory.

Eugenics was widely accepted in the U.S. academic community.[6] By 1928 there were 376 separate university courses in some of the United States’ leading schools, enrolling more than 20,000 students, which included eugenics in the curriculum.[14] It did, however, have scientific detractors (notably, Thomas Hunt Morgan, one of the few Mendelians to explicitly criticize eugenics), though most of these focused more on what they considered the crude methodology of eugenicists, and the characterization of almost every human characteristic as being hereditary, rather than the idea of eugenics itself.[15]

By 1910, there was a large and dynamic network of scientists, reformers and professionals engaged in national eugenics projects and actively promoting eugenic legislation. The American Breeder’s Association was the first eugenic body in the U.S., established in 1906 under the direction of biologist Charles B. Davenport. The ABA was formed specifically to “investigate and report on heredity in the human race, and emphasize the value of superior blood and the menace to society of inferior blood.” Membership included Alexander Graham Bell, Stanford president David Starr Jordan and Luther Burbank.[16][17] The American Association for the Study and Prevention of Infant Mortality was one of the first organizations to begin investigating infant mortality rates in terms of eugenics.[18] They promoted government intervention in attempts to promote the health of future citizens.[19][verification needed]

Several feminist reformers advocated an agenda of eugenic legal reform. The National Federation of Women’s Clubs, the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union, and the National League of Women Voters were among the variety of state and local feminist organization that at some point lobbied for eugenic reforms.[20]

One of the most prominent feminists to champion the eugenic agenda was Margaret Sanger, the leader of the American birth control movement. Margaret Sanger saw birth control as a means to prevent unwanted children from being born into a disadvantaged life, and incorporated the language of eugenics to advance the movement.[21][22] Sanger also sought to discourage the reproduction of persons who, it was believed, would pass on mental disease or serious physical defect. She advocated sterilization in cases where the subject was unable to use birth control.[21] Unlike other eugenicists, she rejected euthanasia.[23] For Sanger, it was individual women and not the state who should determine whether or not to have a child.[24][25]

In the Deep South, women’s associations played an important role in rallying support for eugenic legal reform. Eugenicists recognized the political and social influence of southern clubwomen in their communities, and used them to help implement eugenics across the region.[26] Between 1915 and 1920, federated women’s clubs in every state of the Deep South had a critical role in establishing public eugenic institutions that were segregated by sex.[27] For example, the Legislative Committee of the Florida State Federation of Women’s Clubs successfully lobbied to institute a eugenic institution for the mentally retarded that was segregated by sex.[28] Their aim was to separate mentally retarded men and women to prevent them from breeding more “feebleminded” individuals.

Public acceptance in the U.S. was the reason eugenic legislation was passed. Almost 19 million people attended the PanamaPacific International Exposition in San Francisco, open for 10 months from February 20 to December 4, 1915.[29][30][31] The PPIE was a fair devoted to extolling the virtues of a rapidly progressing nation, featuring new developments in science, agriculture, manufacturing and technology. A subject that received a large amount of time and space was that of the developments concerning health and disease, particularly the areas of tropical medicine and race betterment (tropical medicine being the combined study of bacteriology, parasitology and entomology while racial betterment being the promotion of eugenic studies). Having these areas so closely intertwined, it seemed that they were both categorized in the main theme of the fair, the advancement of civilization. Thus in the public eye, the seemingly contradictory[clarification needed] areas of study were both represented under progressive banners of improvement and were made to seem like plausible courses of action to better American society.[32][verification needed]

Beginning with Connecticut in 1896, many states enacted marriage laws with eugenic criteria, prohibiting anyone who was “epileptic, imbecile or feeble-minded”[33] from marrying.[citation needed]

The first state to introduce a compulsory sterilization bill was Michigan, in 1897 but the proposed law failed to garner enough votes by legislators to be adopted. Eight years later Pennsylvania’s state legislators passed a sterilization bill that was vetoed by the governor. Indiana became the first state to enact sterilization legislation in 1907,[34] followed closely by Washington and California in 1909. Sterilization rates across the country were relatively low (California being the sole exception) until the 1927 Supreme Court case Buck v. Bell which legitimized the forced sterilization of patients at a Virginia home for the mentally retarded. The number of sterilizations performed per year increased until another Supreme Court case, Skinner v. Oklahoma, 1942, complicated the legal situation by ruling against sterilization of criminals if the equal protection clause of the constitution was violated. That is, if sterilization was to be performed, then it could not exempt white-collar criminals.[35] The state of California was at the vanguard of the American eugenics movement, performing about 20,000 sterilizations or one third of the 60,000 nationwide from 1909 up until the 1960s.[36]

While California had the highest number of sterilizations, North Carolina’s eugenics program which operated from 1933 to 1977, was the most aggressive of the 32 states that had eugenics programs.[37] An IQ of 70 or lower meant sterilization was appropriate in North Carolina.[38] The North Carolina Eugenics Board almost always approved proposals brought before them by local welfare boards.[38] Of all states, only North Carolina gave social workers the power to designate people for sterilization.[37] “Here, at last, was a method of preventing unwanted pregnancies by an acceptable, practical, and inexpensive method,” wrote Wallace Kuralt in the March 1967 journal of the N.C. Board of Public Welfare. “The poor readily adopted the new techniques for birth control.”[38]

The Immigration Restriction League was the first American entity associated officially with eugenics. Founded in 1894 by three recent Harvard University graduates, the League sought to bar what it considered inferior races from entering America and diluting what it saw as the superior American racial stock (upper class Northerners of Anglo-Saxon heritage). They felt that social and sexual involvement with these less-evolved and less-civilized races would pose a biological threat to the American population. The League lobbied for a literacy test for immigrants, based on the belief that literacy rates were low among “inferior races”. Literacy test bills were vetoed by Presidents in 1897, 1913 and 1915; eventually, President Wilson’s second veto was overruled by Congress in 1917. Membership in the League included: A. Lawrence Lowell, president of Harvard, William DeWitt Hyde, president of Bowdoin College, James T. Young, director of Wharton School and David Starr Jordan, president of Stanford University.[39]

The League allied themselves with the American Breeder’s Association to gain influence and further its goals and in 1909 established a Committee on Eugenics chaired by David Starr Jordan with members Charles Davenport, Alexander Graham Bell, Vernon Kellogg, Luther Burbank, William Ernest Castle, Adolf Meyer, H. J. Webber and Friedrich Woods. The ABA’s immigration legislation committee, formed in 1911 and headed by League’s founder Prescott F. Hall, formalized the committee’s already strong relationship with the Immigration Restriction League. They also founded the Eugenics Record Office, which was headed by Harry H. Laughlin.[40] In their mission statement, they wrote:

Society must protect itself; as it claims the right to deprive the murderer of his life so it may also annihilate the hideous serpent of hopelessly vicious protoplasm. Here is where appropriate legislation will aid in eugenics and creating a healthier, saner society in the future.”[40]

Money from the Harriman railroad fortune was also given to local charities, in order to find immigrants from specific ethnic groups and deport, confine, or forcibly sterilize them.[6]

With the passage of the Immigration Act of 1924, eugenicists for the first time played an important role in the Congressional debate as expert advisers on the threat of “inferior stock” from eastern and southern Europe.[41][verification needed] The new act, inspired by the eugenic belief in the racial superiority of “old stock” white Americans as members of the “Nordic race” (a form of white supremacy), strengthened the position of existing laws prohibiting race-mixing.[42] Eugenic considerations also lay behind the adoption of incest laws in much of the U.S. and were used to justify many anti-miscegenation laws.[43]

Stephen Jay Gould asserted that restrictions on immigration passed in the United States during the 1920s (and overhauled in 1965 with the Immigration and Nationality Act) were motivated by the goals of eugenics. During the early 20th century, the United States and Canada began to receive far higher numbers of Southern and Eastern European immigrants. Influential eugenicists like Lothrop Stoddard and Harry Laughlin (who was appointed as an expert witness for the House Committee on Immigration and Naturalization in 1920) presented arguments they would pollute the national gene pool if their numbers went unrestricted.[44][45] It has been argued that this stirred both Canada and the United States into passing laws creating a hierarchy of nationalities, rating them from the most desirable Anglo-Saxon and Nordic peoples to the Chinese and Japanese immigrants, who were almost completely banned from entering the country.[42][46]

Both class and race factored into eugenic definitions of “fit” and “unfit.” By using intelligence testing, American eugenicists asserted that social mobility was indicative of one’s genetic fitness.[47] This reaffirmed the existing class and racial hierarchies and explained why the upper-to-middle class was predominately white. Middle-to-upper class status was a marker of “superior strains.”[28] In contrast, eugenicists believed poverty to be a characteristic of genetic inferiority, which meant that that those deemed “unfit” were predominately of the lower classes.[28]

Because class status designated some more fit than others, eugenicists treated upper and lower class women differently. Positive eugenicists, who promoted procreation among the fittest in society, encouraged middle class women to bear more children. Between 1900 and 1960, Eugenicists appealed to middle class white women to become more “family minded,” and to help better the race.[48] To this end, eugenicists often denied middle and upper class women sterilization and birth control.[49]

Since poverty was associated with prostitution and “mental idiocy,” women of the lower classes were the first to be deemed “unfit” and “promiscuous.”[28] These women, who were predominately immigrants or women of color[citation needed], were discouraged from bearing children, and were encouraged to use birth control.

In 1907, Indiana passed the first eugenics-based compulsory sterilization law in the world. Thirty U.S. states would soon follow their lead.[50][51] Although the law was overturned by the Indiana Supreme Court in 1921,[52] the U.S. Supreme Court, in Buck v. Bell, upheld the constitutionality of the Virginia Sterilization Act of 1924, allowing for the compulsory sterilization of patients of state mental institutions in 1927.[53]

Some states sterilized “imbeciles” for much of the 20th century. Although compulsory sterilization is now considered an abuse of human rights, Buck v. Bell was never overturned, and Virginia did not repeal its sterilization law until 1974.[54] The most significant era of eugenic sterilization was between 1907 and 1963, when over 64,000 individuals were forcibly sterilized under eugenic legislation in the United States.[55] Beginning around 1930, there was a steady increase in the percentage of women sterilized, and in a few states only young women were sterilized. From 1930 to the 1960s, sterilizations were performed on many more institutionalized women than men.[28] By 1961, 61 percent of the 62,162 total eugenic sterilizations in the United States were performed on women.[28] A favorable report on the results of sterilization in California, the state with the most sterilizations by far, was published in book form by the biologist Paul Popenoe and was widely cited by the Nazi government as evidence that wide-reaching sterilization programs were feasible and humane.[56][57]

Men and women were compulsorily sterilized for different reasons. Men were sterilized to treat their aggression and to eliminate their criminal behavior, while women were sterilized to control the results of their sexuality.[28] Since women bore children, eugenicists held women more accountable than men for the reproduction of the less “desirable” members of society.[28] Eugenicists therefore predominately targeted women in their efforts to regulate the birth rate, to “protect” white racial health, and weed out the “defectives” of society.[28]

A 1937 Fortune magazine poll found that 2/3 of respondents supported eugenic sterilization of “mental defectives”, 63% supported sterilization of criminals, and only 15% opposed both.[58]

In the 1970s, several activists and women’s rights groups discovered several physicians to be performing coerced sterilizations of specific ethnic groups of society. All were abuses of poor, nonwhite, or mentally retarded women, while no abuses against white or middle-class women were recorded.[59] Although the sterilizations were not explicitly motivated by eugenics, the sterilizations were similar to the eugenics movement[according to whom?] because they were done without the patients’ consent.

For example, in 1972, United States Senate committee testimony brought to light that at least 2,000 involuntary sterilizations had been performed on poor black women without their consent or knowledge. An investigation revealed that the surgeries were all performed in the South, and were all performed on black welfare mothers with multiple children. Testimony revealed that many of these women were threatened with an end to their welfare benefits until they consented to sterilization.[60] These surgeries were instances of sterilization abuse, a term applied to any sterilization performed without the consent or knowledge of the recipient, or in which the recipient is pressured into accepting the surgery. Because the funds used to carry out the surgeries came from the U.S. Office of Economic Opportunity, the sterilization abuse raised older suspicions, especially amongst the black community, that “federal programs were underwriting eugenicists who wanted to impose their views about population quality on minorities and poor women.”[28]

Native American women were also victims of sterilization abuse up into the 1970s.[61] The organization WARN (Women of All Red Nations) publicized that Native American women were threatened that, if they had more children, they would be denied welfare benefits. The Indian Health Service also repeatedly refused to deliver Native American babies until their mothers, in labor, consented to sterilization. Many Native American women unknowingly gave consent, since directions were not given in their native language. According to the General Accounting Office, an estimate of 3,406 Indian women were sterilized.[61] The General Accounting Office stated that the Indian Health Service had not followed the necessary regulations, and that the “informed consent forms did not adhere to the standards set by the United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW).”[62]

One of the methods that was commonly suggested to get rid of “inferior” populations was euthanasia. A 1911 Carnegie Institute report mentioned euthanasia as one of its recommended “solutions” to the problem of cleansing society of unfit genetic attributes. The most commonly suggested method was to set up local gas chambers. However, many in the eugenics movement did not believe that Americans were ready to implement a large-scale euthanasia program, so many doctors had to find clever ways of subtly implementing eugenic euthanasia in various medical institutions. For example, a mental institution in Lincoln, Illinois fed its incoming patients milk infected with tuberculosis (reasoning that genetically fit individuals would be resistant), resulting in 30-40% annual death rates. Other doctors practiced euthanasia through various forms of lethal neglect.[63]

In the 1930s, there was a wave of portrayals of eugenic “mercy killings” in American film, newspapers, and magazines. In 1931, the Illinois Homeopathic Medicine Association began lobbying for the right to euthanize “imbeciles” and other defectives. The Euthanasia Society of America was founded in 1938.[64]

Overall, however, euthanasia was marginalized in the U.S., motivating people to turn to forced segregation and sterilization programs as a means for keeping the “unfit” from reproducing.[65]

Mary deGormo, a former classroom teacher was the first person to combine ideas about health and intelligence standards with competitions at state fairs, in the form of “better baby” contests. She developed the first such contest, the “Scientific Baby Contest” for the Louisiana State Fair in Shreveport, in 1908. She saw these contests as a contribution to the “social efficiency” movement, which was advocating for the standardization of all aspects of American life as a means of increasing efficiency.[18] deGarmo was assisted by the pediatrician Dr. Jacob Bodenheimer, who helped her develop grading sheets for contestants, which combined physical measurements with standardized measurements of intelligence.[66] Scoring was based on a deduction system, in that every child started at 1000 points and then was docked points for having measurements that were below a designated average. The child with the most points (and the least defections) was ideal.[67][verification needed]

The topic of standardization through scientific judgment was a topic that was very serious in the eyes of the scientific community, but has often been downplayed as just a popular fad or trend. Nevertheless, a lot of time, effort, and money were put into these contests and their scientific backing, which would influence cultural ideas as well as local and state government practices.[68][verification needed]

The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People promoted eugenics by hosting “Better Baby” contests and the proceeds would go to its anti-lynching campaign.[10]

First appearing in 1920 at the Kansas Free Fair, Fitter Family competitions, continued all the way until WWII. Mary T. Watts and Florence Brown Sherbon, both initiators of the Better Baby Contests in Iowa, took the idea of positive eugenics for babies and combined it with a determinist concept of biology to come up with fitter family competitions.[69]

There were several different categories that families were judged in: Size of the family, overall attractiveness, and health of the family, all of which helped to determine the likelihood of having healthy children. These competitions were simply a continuation of the Better Baby contests that promoted certain physical and mental qualities.[70] At the time, it was believed that certain behavioral qualities were inherited from your parents. This led to the addition of several judging categories including: generosity, self-sacrificing, and quality of familial bonds. Additionally, there were negative features that were judged: selfishness, jealousy, suspiciousness, high temperedness, and cruelty. Feeblemindedness, alcoholism, and paralysis were few among other traits that were included as physical traits to be judged when looking at family lineage.[29]

Doctors and specialists from the community would offer their time to judge these competitions, which were originally sponsored by the Red Cross.[29] The winners of these competitions were given a Bronze Medal as well as champion cups called “Capper Medals.” The cups were named after then Governor and Senator, Arthur Capper and he would present them to “Grade A individuals”.[71]

The perks of entering into the contests were that the competitions provided a way for families to get a free health check up by a doctor as well as some of the pride and prestige that came from winning the competitions.[29]

By 1925 the Eugenics Records Office was distributing standardized forms for judging eugenically fit families, which were used in contests in several U.S. states.[72]

After the eugenics movement was well established in the United States, it spread to Germany. California eugenicists began producing literature promoting eugenics and sterilization and sending it overseas to German scientists and medical professionals.[65] By 1933, California had subjected more people to forceful sterilization than all other U.S. states combined. The forced sterilization program engineered by the Nazis was partly inspired by California’s.[7]

The Rockefeller Foundation helped develop and fund various German eugenics programs,[73] including the one that Josef Mengele worked in before he went to Auschwitz.[6][74]

Upon returning from Germany in 1934, where more than 5,000 people per month were being forcibly sterilized, the California eugenics leader C. M. Goethe bragged to a colleague:

“You will be interested to know that your work has played a powerful part in shaping the opinions of the group of intellectuals who are behind Hitler in this epoch-making program. Everywhere I sensed that their opinions have been tremendously stimulated by American thought . . . I want you, my dear friend, to carry this thought with you for the rest of your life, that you have really jolted into action a great government of 60 million people.”[75]

Eugenics researcher Harry H. Laughlin often bragged that his Model Eugenic Sterilization laws had been implemented in the 1935 Nuremberg racial hygiene laws.[76] In 1936, Laughlin was invited to an award ceremony at Heidelberg University in Germany (scheduled on the anniversary of Hitler’s 1934 purge of Jews from the Heidelberg faculty), to receive an honorary doctorate for his work on the “science of racial cleansing”. Due to financial limitations, Laughlin was unable to attend the ceremony and had to pick it up from the Rockefeller Institute. Afterwards, he proudly shared the award with his colleagues, remarking that he felt that it symbolized the “common understanding of German and American scientists of the nature of eugenics.”[77]

After 1945, however, historians began to attempt to portray the US eugenics movement as distinct and distant from Nazi eugenics.[78]Jon Entine wrote that eugenics simply means “good genes” and using it as synonym for genocide is an “all-too-common distortion of the social history of genetics policy in the United States.” According to Entine, eugenics developed out of the Progressive Era and not “Hitler’s twisted Final Solution.”[79]

Read more:

Eugenics in the United States – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Negro Project and Margaret Sanger

 Eugenics  Comments Off on The Negro Project and Margaret Sanger
Aug 152015
 

The Negro Project Margaret Sanger’s Eugenic Plan for Black Americans By Tanya L. Green posted at Concerned Women of America

May 10, 2001

‘Civil rights’ doesn’t mean anything without a right to life! declared Hunter. He and the other marchers were protesting the disproportionately high number of abortions in the black community. The high number is no accident. Many Americansblack and whiteare unaware of Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger’s Negro Project. Sanger created this program in 1939, after the organization changed its name from the American Birth Control League (ABCL) to the Birth Control Federation of America (BCFA).1

The aim of the program was to restrictmany believe exterminatethe black population. Under the pretense of better health and family planning, Sanger cleverly implemented her plan. What’s more shocking is Sanger’s beguilement of black America’s crme de la crmethose prominent, well educated and well-to-dointo executing her scheme. Some within the black elite saw birth control as a means to attain economic empowerment, elevate the race and garner the respect of whites.

The Negro Project has had lasting repercussions in the black community: We have become victims of genocide by our own hands, cried Hunter at the Say So march.

Margaret Sanger aligned herself with the eugenicists whose ideology prevailed in the early 20th century. Eugenicists strongly espoused racial supremacy and purity, particularly of the Aryan race. Eugenicists hoped to purify the bloodlines and improve the race by encouraging the fit to reproduce and the unfit to restrict their reproduction. They sought to contain the inferior races through segregation, sterilization, birth control and abortion.

Sanger embraced Malthusian eugenics. Thomas Robert Malthus, a 19th-century cleric and professor of political economy, believed a population time bomb threatened the existence of the human race.2 He viewed social problems such as poverty, deprivation and hunger as evidence of this population crisis. According to writer George Grant, Malthus condemned charities and other forms of benevolence, because he believed they only exacerbated the problems. His answer was to restrict population growth of certain groups of people.3 His theories of population growth and economic stability became the basis for national and international social policy. Grant quotes from Malthus’ magnum opus, An Essay on the Principle of Population, published in six editions from 1798 to 1826:

Malthus’ disciples believed if Western civilization were to survive, the physically unfit, the materially poor, the spiritually diseased, the racially inferior, and the mentally incompetent had to be suppressed and isolatedor even, perhaps, eliminated. His disciples felt the subtler and more scientific approaches of education, contraception, sterilization and abortion were more practical and acceptable ways to ease the pressures of the alleged overpopulation.5

Critics of Malthusianism said the group produced a new vocabulary of mumbo-jumbo. It was all hard-headed, scientific and relentless. Further, historical facts have proved the Malthusian mathematical scheme regarding overpopulation to be inaccurate, though many still believe them.6

Despite the falsehoods of Malthus’ overpopulation claims, Sanger nonetheless immersed herself in Malthusian eugenics. Grant wrote she argued for birth control using the scientifically verified threat of poverty, sickness, racial tension and overpopulation as its background. Sanger’s publication, The Birth Control Review (founded in 1917) regularly published pro-eugenic articles from eugenicists, such as Ernst Rudin.7 Although Sanger ceased editing The Birth Control Review in 1929, the ABCL continued to use it as a platform for eugenic ideas.

Sanger built the work of the ABCL, and, ultimately, Planned Parenthood, on the ideas and resources of the eugenics movement. Grant reported that virtually all of the organization’s board members were eugenicists. Eugenicists financed the early projects, from the opening of birth control clinics to the publishing of revolutionary literature. Eugenicists comprised the speakers at conferences, authors of literature and the providers of services almost without exception. And Planned Parenthood’s international work was originally housed in the offices of the Eugenics Society. The two organizations were intertwined for years.8

The ABCL became a legal entity on April 22, 1922, in New York. Before that, Sanger illegally operated a birth control clinic in October 1916, in the Brownsville section of Brooklyn, New York, which eventually closed. The clinic serviced the poor immigrants who heavily populated the areathose deemed unfit to reproduce.9

Sanger’s early writings clearly reflected Malthus’ influence. She writes:

In another passage, she decries the burden of human waste on society:

She concluded,

The Review printed an excerpt of an address Sanger gave in 1926. In it she said:

Sanger said a bonus would be wise and profitable and the salvation of American civilization.14 She presented her ideas to Mr. C. Harold Smith (of the New York Evening World) on the welfare committee in New York City. She said, people must be helped to help themselves. Any plan or program that would make them dependent upon doles and charities is paternalistic and would not be of any permanent value. She included an essay (what she called a program of public welfare,) entitled We Must Breed a Race of Thoroughbreds.15

In it she argued that birth control clinics, or bureaus, should be established in which men and women will be taught the science of parenthood and the science of breeding. For this was the way to breed out of the race the scourges of transmissible disease, mental defect, poverty, lawlessness, crime … since these classes would be decreasing in number instead of breeding like weeds [emphasis added].16

Her program called for women to receive birth control advice in various situations, including where:

Sanger said such a plan would … reduce the birthrate among the diseased, the sickly, the poverty stricken and anti-social classes, elements unable to provide for themselves, and the burden of which we are all forced to carry.17

Sanger had openly embraced Malthusian eugenics, and it shaped her actions in the ensuing years.

In 1929, 10 years before Sanger created the Negro Project, the ABCL laid the groundwork for a clinic in Harlem, a largely black section of New York City. It was the dawn of the Great Depression, and for blacks that meant double the misery. Blacks faced harsher conditions of desperation and privation because of widespread racial prejudice and discrimination. From the ABCL’s perspective, Harlem was the ideal place for this experimental clinic, which officially opened on November 21, 1930. Many blacks looked to escape their adverse circumstances and therefore did not recognize the eugenic undercurrent of the clinic. The clinic relied on the generosity of private foundations to remain in business.18 In addition to being thought of as inferior and disproportionately represented in the underclass, according to the clinic’s own files used to justify its work, blacks in Harlem:

Although the clinic served whites as well as blacks, it was established for the benefit of the colored people. Sanger wrote this in a letter to Dr. W. E. Burghardt DuBois,20 one of the day’s most influential blacks. A sociologist and author, he helped found the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) in 1909 to improve the living conditions of black Americans.

That blacks endured extreme prejudice and discrimination, which contributed greatly to their plight, seemed to further justify restricting their numbers. Many believed the solution lay in reducing reproduction. Sanger suggested the answer to poverty and degradation lay in smaller numbers of blacks. She convinced black civic groups in Harlem of the benefits of birth control, under the cloak of better health (i.e., reduction of maternal and infant death; child spacing) and family planning. So with their cooperation, and the endorsement of The Amsterdam News (a prominent black newspaper), Sanger established the Harlem branch of the Birth Control Clinical Research Bureau.21 The ABCL told the community birth control was the answer to their predicament.

Sanger shrewdly used the influence of prominent blacks to reach the masses with this message. She invited DuBois and a host of Harlem’s leading blacks, including physicians, social workers, ministers and journalists, to form an advisory council to help direct the clinic so that our work in birth control will be a constructive force in the community.22 She knew the importance of having black professionals on the advisory board and in the clinic; she knew blacks would instinctively suspect whites of wanting to decrease their numbers. She would later use this knowledge to implement the Negro Project.

Sanger convinced the community so well that Harlem’s largest black church, the Abyssinian Baptist Church, held a mass meeting featuring Sanger as the speaker.23 But that event received criticism. At least one very prominent minister of a denomination other than Baptist spoke out against Sanger. Dr. Adam Clayton Powell Sr., pastor of Abyssinian Baptist, received adverse criticism from the (unnamed) minister who was surprised that he’d allow that awful woman in his church.24

Grace Congregational Church hosted a debate on birth control. Proponents argued birth control was necessary to regulate births in proportion to the family’s income; spacing births would help mothers recover physically and fathers financially; physically strong and mentally sound babies would result; and incidences of communicable diseases would decrease.

Opponents contended that as a minority group blacks needed to increase rather than decrease and that they needed an equal distribution of wealth to improve their status. In the end, the debate judges decided the proponents were more persuasive: Birth control would improve the status of blacks.25 Still, there were others who equated birth control with abortion and therefore considered it immoral.

Eventually, the Urban League took control of the clinic,26 an indication the black community had become ensnared in Sanger’s labyrinth.

The Harlem clinic and ensuing birth control debate opened dialogue among blacks about how best to improve their disadvantageous position. Some viewed birth control as a viable solution: High reproduction, they believed, meant prolonged poverty and degradation. Desperate for change, others began to accept the rationale of birth control. A few embraced eugenics. The June 1932 edition of The Birth Control Review, called The Negro Number, featured a series of articles written by blacks on the virtues of birth control.

The editorial posed this question: Shall they go in for quantity or quality in children? Shall they bring children into the world to enrich the undertakers, the physicians and furnish work for social workers and jailers, or shall they produce children who are going to be an asset to the group and American society? The answer: Most [blacks], especially women, would choose quality … if they only knew how.27

DuBois, in his article Black Folk and Birth Control, noted the inevitable clash of ideals between those Negroes who were striving to improve their economic position and those whose religious faith made the limitation of children a sin.28 He criticized the mass of ignorant Negroes who bred carelessly and disastrously so that the increase among [them] … is from that part of the population least intelligent and fit, and least able to rear their children properly.29

DuBois called for a more liberal attitude among black churches. He said they were open to intelligent propaganda of any sort, and the American Birth Control League and other agencies ought to get their speakers before church congregations and their arguments in the Negro newspapers [emphasis added].30

Charles S. Johnson, Fisk University’s first black president, wrote eugenic discrimination was necessary for blacks.31 He said the high maternal and infant mortality rates, along with diseases like tuberculosis, typhoid, malaria and venereal infection, made it difficult for large families to adequately sustain themselves.

Further, the status of Negroes as marginal workers, their confinement to the lowest paid branches of industry, the necessity for the labors of mothers, as well as children, to balance meager budgets, are factors [that] emphasize the need for lessening the burden not only for themselves, but of society, which must provide the supplementary support in the form of relief.32 Johnson later served on the National Advisory Council to the BCFA, becoming integral to the Negro Project.

Writer Walter A. Terpenning described bringing a black child into a hostile world as pathetic. In his article God’s Chillun, he wrote:

Terpenning considered birth control for blacks as the more humane provision and more eugenic than among whites. He felt birth control information should have first been disseminated among blacks rather than the white upper crust.34 He failed to look at the problematic attitudes and behavior of society and how they suppressed blacks. He offered no solutions to the injustice and vile racism that blacks endured.

Sadly, DuBois’ words of black churches being open to intelligent propaganda proved prophetic. Black pastors invited Sanger to speak to their congregations. Black publications, like The Afro-American and The Chicago Defender, featured her writings. Rather than attacking the root causes of maternal and infant deaths, diseases, poverty, unemployment and a host of other social illsnot the least of which was racismSanger pushed birth control. To many, it was better for blacks not to be born rather than endure such a harsh existence.

Against this setting, Sanger charmed the black community’s most distinguished leaders into accepting her plan, which was designed to their own detriment. She peddled her wares wrapped in pretty packages labeled better health and family planning. No one could deny the benefits of better health, being financially ready to raise children, or spacing one’s children. However, the solution to the real issues affecting blacks did not lay in reducing their numbers. It lay in attacking the forces in society that hindered their progress. Most importantly, one had to discern Sanger’s motive behind her push for birth control in the community. It was not an altruistic one.

Prior to 1939, Sanger’s outreach to the black community was largely limited to her Harlem clinic and speaking at black churches.35 Her vision for the reproductive practices of black Americans expanded after the January 1939 merger of the Clinical Research Bureau and the American Birth Control League to form the Birth Control Federation of America. She selected Dr. Clarence J. Gamble, of the soap-manufacturing company Procter and Gamble, to be the BCFA regional director of the South.

Gamble wrote a memorandum in November 1939 entitled Suggestions for the Negro Project, in which he recognized that black leaders might regard birth control as an extermination plot. He suggested black leaders be placed in positions where it would appear they were in charge.36 Yet Sanger’s reply reflects Gamble’s ambivalence about having blacks in authoritative positions:

Another project director lamented:

Sanger knew blacks were a religious peopleand how useful ministers would be to her project. She wrote in the same letter:

Sanger’s cohorts within the BCFA sought to attract black leadership. They succeeded. The list of black leaders who made up BCFA’s National Advisory Council reads like a who’s who among black Americans. To name a few:40

Even with this impressive list, Sanger ran into resistance when she tried to present a birth control exhibit at the 1940 American Negro Exposition, a fair that traces the progress blacks have made since the Emancipation Proclamation, in Chicago. After inviting the BCFA to display its exhibit, the Exposition’s board later cancelled, citing last minute changes in floor space.41

Sanger did not buy this and issued a statement urging public protest. This has come as a complete surprise, said Sanger, since the Federation undertook preparation of the exhibit upon an express invitation from a member of the Exposition board.42 She said the cancellation resulted from concerted action on the part of representatives of the Roman Catholic Church. She even accused the church of threatening officials with the withholding of promised federal and state funds needed to hold the Exposition.43

Her statement mentioned BCFA prepared the exhibit in consultation with its National (Negro) Advisory Council, and it illustrated the need for birth control as a public health measure.44 She said the objective was to demonstrate how birth control would improve the welfare of the Negro population, noting the maternal death rate among black mothers was nearly 50 percent higher, and the child death rate was more than one-third greater than the white community.45

At Sanger’s urging, protesters of the cancellation sent letters to Attorney Wendall E. Green, vice chairman of the Afra-Merican Emancipation Exposition Commission (sponsor of the Exposition), requesting he investigate. Green denied there was any threat or pressure to withhold funds needed to finance the Exposition. Further, he said the Exposition commission (of Illinois) unanimously passed a resolution, which read in part: That in the promotion, conduct and accomplishment of the objectives (of the Exposition) there must be an abiding spirit to create goodwill toward all people.46 He added that since the funds for the Exposition came from citizens of all races and creeds, any exhibit in conflict with the known convictions of any religious group contravenes the spirit of the resolution,47 which seemed to support Catholic opposition. The commission upheld the ban on the exhibit.

The propaganda of the Negro Project was that birth control meant better health. So on this premise, the BCFA designed two southern Negro Project demonstration programs to show how medically-supervised birth control integrated into existing public health services could improve the general welfare of Negroes, and to initiate a nationwide educational program.48

The BCFA opened the first clinic at the Bethlehem Center in urban Nashville, Tennessee (where blacks constituted only 25 percent of the population), on February 13, 1940. They extended the work to the Social Services Center of Fisk University (a historically black college) on July 23, 1940. This location was especially significant because of its proximity to Meharry Medical School, which trained more than 50 percent of black physicians in the United States.49

An analysis of the income of the Nashville group revealed that no family, regardless of size, had an income over $15 a week. The service obviously reached the income group for which it was designed,50 indicating the project’s target. The report claimed to have brought to light serious diseases and making possible their treatment, … [and] that 55 percent [354 of the 638] of the patients prescribed birth control methods used it consistently and successfully.51 However, the report presented no definite figures … to demonstrate the extent of community improvement.52

The BCFA opened the second clinic on May 1, 1940, in rural Berkeley County, South Carolina, under the supervision of Dr. Robert E. Seibels, chairman of the Committee on Maternal Welfare of the South Carolina Medical Association.53 BCFA chose this site in part because leaders in the state were particularly receptive to the experiment. South Carolina had been the second state to make child spacing a part of its state public health program after a survey of the state’s maternal deaths showed that 25 percent occurred among mothers known to be physically unfit for pregnancy.54 Again, the message went out: Birth controlnot better prenatal carereduced maternal and infant mortality.

Although Berkeley County’s population was 70 percent black, the clinic received criticism that members of this group were overwhelmingly in the majority.55 Seibels assured Claude Barnett that this was not the case. We have … simply given our help to those who were willing to receive it, and these usually are Negroes, he said.56

While religious convictions significantly influenced the Nashville patients’ view of birth control, people in Berkeley County had no religious prejudice against birth control. But the attitude that treatment of any disease was ‘against nature’ was in the air.57 Comparing the results of the two sites, it is seen that the immediate receptivity to the demonstration was at the outset higher in the rural area.58 However, the final total success was lower [in the rural area]. However, in Berkeley, stark poverty was even more in evidence, and bad roads, bad weather and ignorance proved powerful counter forces [to the contraceptive programs]. After 18 months, the Berkeley program closed.59

The report indicated that, contrary to expectations, the lives of black patients serviced by the clinics did not improve dramatically from birth control. Two beliefs stood in the way: Some blacks likened birth control to abortion and others regarded it as inherently immoral.60 However, when thrown against the total pictures of the awareness on the part of Negro leaders of the improved conditions, … and their opportunities to even better conditions under Planned Parenthood, … the obstacles to the program are greatly outweighed, said Dr. Dorothy Ferebee.61

A hint of eugenic flavor seasoned Ferebee’s speech: The future program [of Planned Parenthood] should center around more education in the field through the work of a professional Negro worker, because those of us who believe that the benefits of Planned Parenthood as a vital key to the elimination of human waste must reach the entire population [emphasis added].62 She peppered her speech with the importance of Negro professionals, fully integrated into the staff, … who could interpret the program and objectives to [other blacks] in the normal course of day-to-day contacts; could break down fallacious attitudes and beliefs and elements of distrust; could inspire the confidence of the group; and would not be suspect of the intent to eliminate the race [emphasis added].63

Sanger even managed to lure the prominentbut hesitantblack minister J. T. Braun, editor in chief of the National Baptist Convention’s Sunday School Publishing Board in Nashville, Tennessee, into her deceptive web. Braun confessed to Sanger that the very idea of such a thing [birth control] has always held the greatest hatred and contempt in my mind. … I am hesitant to give my full endorsement of this idea, until you send me, perhaps, some more convincing literature on the subject.64 Sanger happily complied. She sent Braun the Federal Council of Churches’ Marriage and Home Committee pamphlet praised by Bishop Sims (another member of the National Advisory Council), assuring him that: There are some people who believe that birth control is an attempt to dictate to families how many children to have. Nothing could be further from the truth.65

Sanger’s assistants gave Braun more pro-birth control literature and a copy of her autobiography, which he gave to his wife to read. Sanger’s message of preventing maternal and infant mortality stirred Braun’s wife. Now convinced of this need, Braun permitted a group of women to use his chapel for a birth-control talk.66 [I was] moved by the number of prominent [black] Christians backing the proposition, Braun wrote in a letter to Sanger.67 At first glance I had a horrible shock to the proposition because it seemed to me to be allied to abortion, but after thought and prayer, I have concluded that especially among many women, it is necessary both to save the lives of mothers and children [emphasis added].68

By 1949, Sanger had hoodwinked black America’s best and brightest into believing birth control’s life-saving benefits. In a monumental feat, she bewitched virtually an entire network of black social, professional and academic organizations69 into endorsing Planned Parenthood’s eugenic program.70

Sanger’s successful duplicity does not in any way suggest blacks were gullible. They certainly wanted to decrease maternal and infant mortality and improve the community’s overall health. They wholly accepted her message because it seemed to promise prosperity and social acceptance. Sanger used their vulnerabilities and their ignorance (of her deliberately hidden agenda) to her advantage. Aside from birth control, she offered no other medical or social solutions to their adversity. Surely, blacks would not have been such willing accomplices had they perceived her true intentions. Considering the role eugenics played in the early birth control movementand Sanger’s embracing of that ideologythe notion of birth control as seemingly the only solution to the problems that plagued blacks should have been much more closely scrutinized.

Planned Parenthood has gone to great lengths to repudiate the organization’s eugenic origins.71 It adamantly denies Sanger was a eugenicist or racist, despite evidence to the contrary. Because Sanger stopped editing The Birth Control Review in 1929, the organization tries to disassociate her from the eugenic and racist-oriented articles published after that date. However, a summary of an address Sanger gave in 1932, which appeared in the Review that year, revealed her continuing bent toward eugenics.

In A Plan for Peace, Sanger suggested Congress set up a special department to study population problems and appoint a Parliament of Population. One of the main objectives of the Population Congress would be to raise the level and increase the general intelligence of population. This would be accomplished by applying a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation [in addition to tightening immigration laws] to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.72

It’s reasonable to conclude that as the leader of Planned Parenthoodeven after 1929Sanger would not allow publication of ideas she didn’t support.

Sanger’s defenders argue she only wanted to educate blacks about birth control’s health benefits. However, she counted the very people she wanted to educate among the unfit, whose numbers needed to be restricted.

Grant presents other arguments Sanger’s supporters use to refute her racist roots:73

These justifications also fail because of what Grant calls scientific racism. This form of racism is based on genes, rather than skin color or language. The issue is not ‘color of skin’ or ‘dialect of tongue,’ Grant writes, but ‘quality of genes [emphasis added].’74 Therefore, as long as blacks, Jews and Hispanics demonstrate ‘a good quality gene pool’as long as they ‘act white and think white’then they are esteemed equally with Aryans. As long as they are, as Margaret Sanger said, ‘the best of their race,’ then they can be [counted] as valuable citizens [emphasis added]. By the same token, individual whites who show dysgenic traits must also have their fertility curbed right along with the other ‘inferiors and undesirables.’75

In short, writes Grant, Scientific racism is an equal opportunity discriminator [emphasis added]. Anyone with a ‘defective gene pool’ is suspect. And anyone who shows promise may be admitted to the ranks of the elite.76

The eugenic undertone is hard to miss. As Grant rightly comments, The bottom line is that Planned Parenthood was self-consciously organized, in part, to promote and enforce White Supremacy. … It has been from its inception implicitly and explicitly racist.77

There is no way to escape the implications, argues William L. Davis, a black financial analyst Grant quotes. When an organization has a history of racism, when its literature is openly racist, when its goals are self-consciously racial, and when its programs invariably revolve around race, it doesn’t take an expert to realize that the organization is indeed racist.78

It is impossible to sever Planned Parenthood’s past from its present. Its legacy of lies and propaganda continues to infiltrate the black community. The poison is even more venomous because, in addition to birth control, Planned Parenthood touts abortion as a solution to the economic and social problems that plague the community. In its wake is the loss of more than 12 million lives within the black community alone. Planned Parenthood’s own records reflect this. For example, a 1992 report revealed that 23.2 percent of women who obtained abortions at its affiliates were black79although blacks represent no more than 13 percent of the total population. In 1996, Planned Parenthood’s research arm reported: Blacks, who make up 14 percent of all childbearing women, have 31 percent of all abortions and whites, who account for 81 percent of women of childbearing age, have 61 percent.80

Abortion is the number-one killer of blacks in America, says Rev. Hunter of LEARN. We’re losing our people at the rate of 1,452 a day. That’s just pure genocide. There’s no other word for it. [Sanger’s] influence and the whole mindset that Planned Parenthood has brought into the black community … say it’s okay to destroy your people. We bought into the lie; we bought into the propaganda.81

Some blacks have even made abortion rights synonymous with civil rights.

We’re destroying the destiny and purpose of others who should be here, Hunter laments. Who knows the musicians we’ve lost? Who knows the great leaders the black community has really lost? Who knows what great minds of economic power people have lost? What great teachers? He recites an old African proverb: No one knows whose womb holds the chief.82

Hunter has personally observed the vestiges of Planned Parenthood’s eugenic past in the black community today. When I travel around the country … I can only think of one abortion clinic [I’ve seen] in a predominantly white neighborhood. The majority of clinics are in black neighborhoods.83

Hunter noted the controversy that occurred two years ago in Louisiana involving school-based health clinics. The racist undertone could not have been more evident. In the Baton Rouge district, officials were debating placing clinics in the high schools. Black state representative Sharon Weston Broome initially supported the idea. She later expressed concern about clinics providing contraceptives and abortion counseling. Clinics should promote abstinence, she said.84 Upon learning officials wanted to put the clinics in black schools only, Hunter urged her to suggest they be placed in white schools as well. At Broome’s suggestion, however, proposals for the school clinics were dropped immediately, reported Hunter.

Grant observed the same game plan 20 years ago. During the 1980s when Planned Parenthood shifted its focus from community-based clinics to school-based clinics, it again targeted inner-city minority neighborhoods, he writes.85 Of the more than 100 school-based clinics that have opened nationwide in the last decade [1980s], none has been at substantially all-white schools, he adds. None has been at suburban middle-class schools. All have been at black, minority or ethnic schools.86

In 1987, a group of black ministers, parents and educators filed suit against the Chicago Board of Education. They charged the city’s school-based clinics with not only violating the state’s fornication laws, but also with discrimination against blacks. The clinics were a calculated, pernicious effort to destroy the very fabric of family life [between] black parents and their children, the suit alleged.87

One of the parents in the group was shocked when her daughter came home from school with Planned Parenthood material. I never realized how racist those people were until I read the [information my daughter received] at the school clinic, she said. [They are worse than] the Klan … because they’re so slick and sophisticated. Their bigotry is all dolled up with statistics and surveys, but just beneath the surface it’s as ugly as apartheid.88

A more recent account uncovered a Planned Parenthood affiliate giving condoms to residents of a poor black neighborhood in Akron, Ohio.89 The residents received a promotional bag containing, among other things: literature on sexually transmitted disease prevention, gynecology exams and contraception, a condom-case key chain containing a bright-green condom, and a coupon. The coupon was redeemable at three Ohio county clinics for a dozen condoms and a $5 McDonald’s gift certificate. All the items were printed with Planned Parenthood phone numbers.

The affiliate might say they’re targeting high-pregnancy areas, but their response presumes destructive behavior on the part of the targeted group. Planned Parenthood has always been reluctant to promote, or encourage, abstinence as the only safeguard against teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases, calling it unrealistic.

Rev. Richard Welch, president of Human Life International in Front Royal, Virginia, blasted the affiliate for targeting low-income, minority neighborhoods with the bags. He said the incident revealed the racism inherent in promoting abortion and contraception in primarily minority neighborhoods.90

He then criticized Planned Parenthood: Having sprung from the racist dreams of a woman determined to apply abortion and contraception to eugenics and ethnic cleansing, Planned Parenthood remains true to the same strategy today.91

Black leaders have been silent about Margaret Sanger’s evil machination against their community far too long. They’ve been silent about abortion’s devastating effects in their communitydespite their pro-life inclination. The majority of [blacks] are more pro-life than anything else, said Hunter.92 Blacks were never taught to destroy their children; even in slavery they tried to hold onto their children.

Blacks are not quiet about the issue because they do not care, but rather because the truth has been kept from them. The issue is … to educate our people, said former Planned Parenthood board member LaVerne Tolbert.93

Today, a growing number of black pro-lifers are untangling the deceptive web spun by Sanger. They are using truth to shed light on the lies. The Say So march is just one example of their burgeoning pro-life activism. As the marchers laid 1,452 roses at the courthouse stepsto commemorate the number of black babies aborted dailyspokesman Damon Owens said, This calls national attention to the problem [of abortion]. This is an opportunity for blacks to speak to other blacks. This doesn’t solve all of our problems. But we will not solve our other problems with abortion.

Black pro-lifers are also linking arms with their white pro-life brethren. Black Americans for Life (BAL) is an outreach group of the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), a Washington, D.C.-based grassroots organization. NRLC encourages networking between black and white pro-lifers. Our goal is to bring people togetherfrom all races, colors, and religionsto work on pro-life issues, said NRLC Director of Outreach Ernest Ohlhoff.94 Black Americans for Life is not a parallel group; we want to help African-Americans integrate communicational and functionally into the pro-life movement.

Mrs. Beverly LaHaye, founder and chairman of Concerned Women for America, echoes the sentiment. Our mission is to protect the right to life of all members of the human race. CWA welcomes like-minded women and men, from all walks of life, to join us in this fight.

Concerned Women for America has a long history of fighting Planned Parenthood’s evil agenda. The Negro Project is an obscure angle, but one that must come to light. Margaret Sanger sold black Americans an illusion. Now with the veil of deception removed, they can choose life … that [their] descendants may live.

Read more here:

The Negro Project and Margaret Sanger

THE Margaret Sanger

 Eugenics  Comments Off on THE Margaret Sanger
Aug 152015
 

Abortion clinics were originally set up with the intention of slowing the population growth of Afro-Americans and others racial groups considered mentally or otherwise inferior.

Margaret Sanger’s Planned Parenthood is the major force behind the abortion and pro-choice/abortion movement in America. If you are proud of being pro-choice, you should know more about the most responsible person for the pro-abortion-rights movement and abortion industry in the 20th century.

“Lothrop Stoddard was on the board of directors (of Margaret Sanger’s Population Association of America) for years…. He had an interview with Adolf Hitler and was very impressed. His book, The Rising Tide of Color Against White World Supremacy, was written while he served on Sanger’s board. Havelock Ellis, one of Sanger’s extra-marital lovers, reviewed this..book favorably in The Birth Control Review”.

At a March,1925 international birth control gathering in New York City, a speaker warned of the menace posed by the “black” and “yellow” peril. The man was not a Nazi or Klansman; he was Dr. S. Adolphus Knopf, a member of Margaret Sanger’s American Birth Control League (ABCL), which along with other groups eventually became known as Planned Parenthood.

Margaret Sanger’s beliefs about social works of charity are revealing: She criticized the success– not failure– of charity… She called for the halt to the medical care being given to slum mothers, and decried the expense to the taxpayers of monies being spent on the deaf, blind and dependent. She condemned foreign missionaries for reducing the infant mortality rates in developing countries, and declared charity to be more evil than for the assistance it provided to the poor and needy. Sanger’s thinking moved to fascism in an elitist attitude that presumes to judge who is worthy to live and to die.

“Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion provider in America. 78% of their clinics are in minority communities. Blacks make up 12% of the population, but 35% of the abortions in America. Are they being targeted? Isn’t that genocide? We are the only minority in America that is on the decline in population. If the current trend continues, by 2038 the black vote will be insignificant. Did you know that the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, was a devout racist who created the Negro Project designed to sterilize unknowing black women and others she deemed as undesirables of society? The founder of Planned Parenthood said, “Colored people are like human weeds and are to be exterminated.” Is her vision being fulfilled today?” quoted from blackgenocide.org

Adolf Hitler – Fuehrer of Nazi Germany “The demand that defective people be prevented from propagating equally defective offspring. . . represents the most humane act of mankind.” Mein Kampf, vol. 1, ch. 10 from Hitler and Eugenics

Margaret Sanger – Founder of Planned Parenthood “. . .we prefer the policy of immediate sterilizarion, of making sure that parenthood is ‘ absolutely prohibited ‘ to the feeble-minded.” The Pivot of Civilization, p102

“Can two walk together, except they be agreed?” Amos 3:3

Now: The preborn child is often targeted for death if tests show that it may have a physical or mental handicap. The American eugenics program has no central sponsor but does have several large advocacy groups, including Planned Parenthood, NARAL (National Abortion Rights Action League) and the National Abortion Federation.

“In the past few years there has been a frantic effort on the part of Planned Parenthood ideologues to revise their own history. Much of the effort has been waged in an attempt to distance the organization and it’s founder, Margaret Sanger, from charges of radical racial bigotry. Mike Richmond draws from a selection of authors to demonstrate that Sanger and Planned Parenthood are rooted in eugenics, and have earned a despised place in history along with Adolf Hitler and the German Third Reich were.” from “Life Advocate, Jan.-Feb., 1998, Vol. XII, Number 10,

Another link between Margaret Sanger, American Eugenicist and Adolf Hitler, Eugenics practitioner: “The leaders in the German sterilization movement state repeatedly that their legislation was formulated after careful study of the California experiment as reported by Mr. Gosney and Dr. [Paul] Popenoe. It would have been impossible, they say, to undertake such a venture involving some 1 million people without drawing heavily upon previous experience elsewhere.” Who is Dr. Paul Popenoe? He was a leader in the U.S. eugenics movement and wrote (1933) the article ‘Eugenic Sterilization’ in the journal (BCR) that Margaret Sanger started. How many Americans did Dr. Popenoe estimate should be subjected to sterilization? Between five million and ten million Americans. “The situation [in the U.S.A] will grow worse instead of better if steps are not taken to control the reproduction of mentally handicapped. Eugenic sterilization represents one such step that is practicable, humanitarian, and certain in its results.”

from

First, put into action President Wilson’s fourteen points, upon which terms Germany and Austria surrendered to the Allies in 1918.

Second, have Congress set up a special department for the study of population problems and appoint a Parliament of Population, the directors representing the various branches of science: this body to direct and control the population through birth rates and immigration, and to direct its distribution over the country according to national needs consistent with taste, fitness and interest of individuals. The main objects of the Population Congress would be:

a. to raise the level and increase the general intelligence of population.

b. to increase the population slowly by keeping the birth rate at its present level of fifteen per thousand, decreasing the death rate below its present mark of 11 per thousand.

c. to keep the doors of immigration closed to the entrance of certain aliens whose condition is known to be detrimental to the stamina of the race, such as feebleminded, idiots, morons, insane, syphilitic, epileptic, criminal, professional prostitutes, and others in this class barred by the immigration laws of 1924.

d. to apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.

e. to insure the country against future burdens of maintenance for numerous offspring as may be born of feebleminded parents, by pensioning all persons with transmissible disease who voluntarily consent to sterilization.

f. to give certain dysgenic groups in our population their ( another Pro-Choice) choice of segregation or sterilization.

g. to apportion farm lands and homesteads for these segregated persons (sounds like a return to the plantation for a life of slavery) where they would be taught to work under competent instructors for the period of their entire lives.

The first step would thus be to control the intake and output of morons, mental defectives, epileptics.

The second step would be to take an inventory of the secondary group such as illiterates, paupers, unemployables, criminals, prostitutes, dope-fiends; classify them in special departments under government medical protection, and segregate them on farms and open spaces as long as necessary for the strengthening and development of moral conduct.

Having corralled this enormous part of our population and placed it on a basis of health instead of punishment, it is safe to say that fifteen or twenty millions of our population would then be organized into soldiers of defense—defending the unborn against their own disabilities.

The third step would be to give special attention to the mothers’ health, to see that women who are suffering from tuberculosis, heart or kidney disease, toxic goitre, gonorrhea, or any disease where the condition of pregnancy disturbs their health are placed under public health nurses to instruct them in practical, scientific methods of contraception in order to safeguard their lives—thus reducing maternal mortality.

The above steps may seem to place emphasis on a health program instead of on tariffs, moratoriums and debts, but I believe that national health is the first essential factor in any program for universal peace.

With the future citizen safeguarded from hereditary taints, with five million mental and moral degenerates (Sanger was known for her attitudes on free sex, adultery and abortion. Under this provision, Ms. Sanger’s sexual profligacy and pro-abortion – murder of the unborn- would have placed Sanger, herself, into this category) segregated, with ten million women and ten million children receiving adequate care, we could then turn our attention to the basic needs for international peace.

There would then be a definite effort to make population increase slowly and at a specified rate, in order to accommodate and adjust increasing numbers to the best social and economic system.

In the meantime we should organize and join an International League of Low Birth Rate Nations to secure and maintain World Peace.

“Summary of address before the New History Society”, January 17th, New York City

Highlights in red inserted by website author.

Margaret Sanger, Sterilization, and the Swastika by Mike Richmond Good assessment of Sanger’s beliefs and the affect of her influence

See the article here:

THE Margaret Sanger

 Posted by at 3:08 pm  Tagged with:

THICK WHITE GIRLS BLACK GUYS INTERRACIAL RACE MIXING ILLUMINATI JAMEEL RAWLS RESEARCH – Video

 Illuminati  Comments Off on THICK WHITE GIRLS BLACK GUYS INTERRACIAL RACE MIXING ILLUMINATI JAMEEL RAWLS RESEARCH – Video
Apr 112015
 



THICK WHITE GIRLS BLACK GUYS INTERRACIAL RACE MIXING ILLUMINATI JAMEEL RAWLS RESEARCH
THICK WHITE GIRLS BLACK GUYS INTERRACIAL MIXING PROMOTED BY THE ILLUMINATI OR JUST PROPAGANDA ??? JAMEEL RAWLS RESEARCH.

By: Jameel Rawls

Here is the original post:
THICK WHITE GIRLS BLACK GUYS INTERRACIAL RACE MIXING ILLUMINATI JAMEEL RAWLS RESEARCH – Video

 Posted by at 6:46 am  Tagged with:

Seo Joon Yong takes Tour de Langkawi stage 5

 SEO  Comments Off on Seo Joon Yong takes Tour de Langkawi stage 5
Mar 132015
 

By VeloNews.com Published Mar. 12, 2015 Updated 1 day ago Seo Joon Yong assumed a time trial position at the end of the Tour de Langkawi’s fifth stage. Photo: Tim De Waele | TDWsport.com

Seo Joon Yong (KSPO) soloed to victory in stage 5 of the Tour de Langkawi Thursday in Malaysia.

Seo was riding in an eight-man breakaway before attacking with 25 kilometers left in the 200km stage from Kuala Terengganu to Kuantan. He time trialed his way to the finish line from there, crossing 13 seconds ahead of Jamalidin Novardianto (Pegasus) and Adiq Husainie Othman (Terengganu Cycling Team).

Two years ago in Kuantan, it was also a breakaway, but I lost in a sprint [to Colnago-CSF Inoxs Marco Canola], said Seo. So this time I didnt want that to happen again, and I didnt want to let it end the same way. Thus at 25km to go, I decided to launch an early attack to try and win on my own.

In the race for the overall, Caleb Ewan (Orica-GreenEdge) holds a 17-second lead over Natnael Berhane and a 20-second buffer over Youcef Reguigui, both of MTN-Qhubeka, with three stages remaining.

When the breakaway went, we thought it would be okay, said Ewan. We could take a break and see how it goes after four days of hard racing in the heat. For us, it was okay, and we thought that if others want to give it a go and catch the breakaway then go for a bunch sprint, we would join in and help, but nobody looked interested.

The Tour de Langkawi resumes Friday with the 96.6km stage 6 from Maran to Karak.

I am proud of this win because it was hard-earned, said Seo. Every year I come to Langkawi, and I try to do something. This time I managed to win a stage.

FILED UNDER: Race Report / Road TAGS: Adiq Husainie Othman / Caleb Ewan / Jamalidin Novardianto / Natnael Berhane / Seo Joon Yong / Tour de Langkawi / Youcef Reguigui

Go here to read the rest:
Seo Joon Yong takes Tour de Langkawi stage 5

Hovdey: Success may win over Pain and Misery

 Misc  Comments Off on Hovdey: Success may win over Pain and Misery
Feb 202015
 

Email

On the face of it, Pain and Misery is just about the worst name you could give a racehorse. This is not to trample on an owners first amendment rights to freedom of speech and its more creative expressions (as upheld in The Jockey Club vs. Mike Pegram in the naming of Isitingood). But this is 2015, for Petes sake, and the tolerance for any whiff of a cold-hearted attitude toward the welfare of the animal has pretty much evaporated.

Furthermore, its not as if Pain and Misery is going away anytime soon. In his first race as a 3-year-old last weekend, which was also his first race for trainer Richard Mandella, the racy brown gelding just missed winning the $75,000 Baffle Stakes at about 6 1/2 furlongs down the hillside course at Santa Anita. He was caught in the last jumps by Bench Warrant, who was coming off a pretty good effort to Lord Nelson and Texas Red in the San Vicente, in a race that put some life in a quiet Sunday afternoon.

Pain and Misery was ridden by young Flavien Prat, who did not as Trevor Denman suggested at one point during his call of the race drop his whip in the heat of the battle. To Mandella it didnt matter much, since his expectations were modest, and he was pleased with both horse and rider.

He came here from New Mexico during the fall meet at Del Mar, Mandella said. But he needed to back off a little before he could go forward. After that he came along really good. I needed to get a race into him, and the 6 1/2 on the turf was the only thing around. He did it really well, so now we can think about something like the San Felipe with him.

The San Felipe Stakes, on March 7, is the next major West Coast stop on the Kentucky Derby Express. Pain and Miserys pedigree by Bob and John out of a Running Stag mare suggests that the 1 1/16 miles of the San Felipe should be no sweat, and if he can handle the dirt at Zia Park he will love the stuff at Santa Anita.

This is a sweetheart of a horse, Mandella said. Good-natured. Does everything right. Just a pleasure to be around.

Which begs the question why does such a nice horse have to be burdened with such a terrible name? In a column from his collection This Was Racing, Joe Palmer held forth on the naming of horses for reasons both naughty and nice. He brought up a fellow who called one of his horses Ugly Mary and another Losing Clon.

He approached this on a practical level, Palmer wrote. He said with those names female hunch players would not bet on them, and he would get better odds when they won.

Of course, this is both sexist and wildly incorrect, unless female hunch players make up considerably more of the pari-mutuel pools that weve been led to believe. Pain and Misery went off at 10-1 in the Baffle, but the price could be blamed more on the uncertain 2-year-old form he brought to town from New Mexico, by way of Zia Park, where he won a maiden race and then the Governors Cup last fall for trainer Henry Dominguez.

See the original post:
Hovdey: Success may win over Pain and Misery

 Posted by at 3:44 pm  Tagged with:

The French Debate: Free Speech Versus Hate Speech

 Free Speech  Comments Off on The French Debate: Free Speech Versus Hate Speech
Feb 102015
 

French comedian Dieudonne M’Bala M’Bala, center, gestures as he exits the courtroom after his trial in Paris last Wednesday. He was ordered to pay $37,000 for condoning terrorism. His lawyer argues he was denied the same freedom of expression that the satirical magazine Charlie Hedbo received. Ian Langsdon/EPA/Landov hide caption

French comedian Dieudonne M’Bala M’Bala, center, gestures as he exits the courtroom after his trial in Paris last Wednesday. He was ordered to pay $37,000 for condoning terrorism. His lawyer argues he was denied the same freedom of expression that the satirical magazine Charlie Hedbo received.

When terrorists attacked a satirical magazine in Paris last month killing eight journalists, millions took to the streets in support of free speech. They waved pencils and carried signs in solidarity with the magazine Charlie Hebdo.

But in the weeks since those attacks, scores have also been arrested for condoning terrorism and inciting racial and religious hatred. Many now wonder if the government’s crackdown on hate speech is compromising free speech.

One of those arrested in the wake of the attacks was controversial stand-up comedian Dieudonne M’Bala M’bala. Last Wednesday, a judge ordered him to pay the equivalent of a $37,000 fine for condoning terrorism.

The comic has faced prosecution many times in the past for his crude, anti-Semitic jokes. This time it was for posting “I feel like Charlie Coulibaly” on his Facebook page.

The judge said Dieudonne’s remark was clear support for Amedy Coulibaly, the gunman who killed a police officer and four people in a kosher grocery store.

Dieudonne’s lawyer Jacques Verdier says his client is consistently denied the same freedom of expression that magazine Charlie Hebdo is granted.

“Dieudonne is constantly hounded and harassed, which is why he said he feels like a terrorist,” says Verdier.

In France, like in the United States, people are free to express their opinions. But in France that freedom of speech ends at insulting others based on their race, religion or sex.

See more here:
The French Debate: Free Speech Versus Hate Speech

 Posted by at 7:40 am  Tagged with:

Iowa poll: Scott Walker leads GOP field

 Misc  Comments Off on Iowa poll: Scott Walker leads GOP field
Feb 012015
 

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker is the top choice for Iowa GOP voters ahead of the 2016 caucuses in the state according to a new poll. But Sen. Rand Paul (Ky.) is right behind.

Walker leads the field with 15 percent of voters, according to the poll from the Des Moines Register. His stock has been rising in conservative circles, especially in the Hawkeye State, after a strong showing at the Iowa Freedom Summit last week.

Paul is nipping at Walkers heels with 14 percent support. Iowa Republicans received the Paul family brand of libertarianism well in 2012, when Rand Pauls father, former Rep. Ron Paul (Texas), ran for president. The elder Paul initially came in third, and his campaign went on to secure the majority of the states delegates unbound by those results.

After that, support falls off. Sen. Ted Cruz (Texas) and former Sen. Rick Santorum (Pa.) come next at five and four percent respectively. And a mass of Republican contenders, including Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.), former Texas Gov. Rick Perry (Texas), Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal and real estate magnate Donald Trump round out the group, with the lowest amount of support measured.

The Iowa caucuses are vital because they are the first contest in the presidential nominating process. But theres still a year left to go, and anything can happen.

Just months before the 2012 Iowa caucuses, former Rep. Michele Bachmann (Minn.) won among Republicans in the Ames straw poll, a popular pre-caucus poll. She won five percent of the popular vote and zero delegates in the actual caucuses, prompting her to drop out of the race.

The rest is here:
Iowa poll: Scott Walker leads GOP field

 Posted by at 8:40 am  Tagged with:

Liberty girls edge Emmaus in EPC swimming, Green Hornet boys win easily

 Liberty  Comments Off on Liberty girls edge Emmaus in EPC swimming, Green Hornet boys win easily
Jan 222015
 

It was competition at its finest. Tuesday’s girls swimming and diving meet between host Emmaus and Liberty came down to the final event the 400-yard freestyle relay.

The winner of the race would win the meet.

After three legs of the relay, Emmaus’ Kaitlin Hur and Liberty’s Julia McCarthy splashed into the water just a split-second apart for the final leg. McCarthy, one of the Lehigh Valley’s elite swimmers, incrementally pulled away over the final 100 yards and the Hurricanes earned a dramatic 96-90 victory the Green Hornets.

The boys meet was not as closely contested. Unbeaten Emmaus, a perennial state power which owns the last seven District 11 Class 3A team titles, doubled up Liberty 124-62.

Coach Tim O’Connor’s Green Hornet boys improved to 8-0 overall and 7-0 in the Eastern Pennsylvania Conference. Liberty’s girls are now 8-1 overall.

Numerous outstanding performances by swimmers on both girls teams set up the winner-take-all final race.

Liberty coach Reik Foust re-arranged the order of his 400 freestyle relay, putting Jocelyn Baker at the leadoff spot, Maggie Walters second, Kayla Drago third and McCarthy on the anchor leg.

“It could’ve gone either way,” the veteran coach said. “I wanted to shake things up a little bit and get them to focus on the race rather than the situation. It could’ve freaked them out, too. But I was confident in my girls.”

That confidence was rewarded. The team’s winning time of 3 minutes, 44.71 seconds was its fastest this season. Emmaus’ foursome of Casey Young, Samantha Mull, Tori Bingham and Hur clocked a 3:47.44.

The splits proved how close the race was throughout. Liberty trailed Emmaus by 17-tenths of a second after the first leg and 69-tenths after the second leg. The Hurricanes led by 12-tenths of a second when McCarthy dove in for the final 100 yards.

Originally posted here:
Liberty girls edge Emmaus in EPC swimming, Green Hornet boys win easily

 Posted by at 4:45 am  Tagged with:

Satire and Sanity: Where Do You Draw the Line? (News Analysis)

 Misc  Comments Off on Satire and Sanity: Where Do You Draw the Line? (News Analysis)
Jan 152015
 

“We have the right to make dumb jokes.”

— Tina Fey

I’m a free speech advocate. I’ve been arrested and I have served jail time for exercising my First Amendment rights. As a reporter, magazine editor and political cartoonist, I’ve received complaints (and a few rare death threats) for my work. So it goes without saying that I share the global outrage over the brutal murders of the cartoonists and staff at the French magazine Charlie Hebdo. It chills the blood to imagine any American cartoonist being placed in the crosshairs of a Kalashnikov. No matter your race, religion, history or lifestyle, murder is a heinous crimefar worse than even the most wounding insult.

But after dwelling on the causes and effects of this tragedy, I find that I have some qualms about the argument that there should be no limits to the exercise of free speech.

My concerns begin with a question: “At what point does satire become bullying?” At what point does satire morph from a deftly wielded surgical tool into a blunt instrument of personal or cultural assault? As we have seen, a pen can draw a cartoon but a weaponized cartoon can draw blood. Does the cause of “free speech” bind us to defend slanders, lies and defamation?

Many advocates of free speech make a point of defending uncensored and fearless public expressionbut only so long as the speech does not veer into venomous and hateful rhetoric. When “free speech” devolves into racist or misogynistic invective, it can prove as devastating to public peace as yelling “Fire!” in the legendary “crowded auditorium.” Such mean-spirited expressions are classified as “hate speech” and are characterized by content that “offends, threatens, or insults groups, based on race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, disability, or other traits.”

Unclothed Emperors Versus the Naked Masses

Satire, as a form of mockery, reads entirely differently depending on where and how it is directed. Ridicule directed against the powerfulwhether the target be a wealthy member of the elite or a multinational corporationis most easily recognized as the proper use of the satiric tool. However, ridicule directed against the powerless, the disenfranchised, or the disabled can be seen as inappropriate and coldhearted bullying.

Even hate speech can be nuanced by the interplay of social realities. It’s one thing for the oppressed to call for the elimination of the ruling classes; it’s another matter for the rulers to call for the elimination of masses. Regicide and genocide are both crimes but there is a vast difference in scale.

Satire, as defined by Wikipedia, is “a genre of literature, and sometimes graphic and performing arts, in which vices, follies, abuses, and shortcomings are held up to ridicule, ideally with the intent of shaming individuals, corporations, government or society itself, into improvement.”

Original post:
Satire and Sanity: Where Do You Draw the Line? (News Analysis)

 Posted by at 3:41 am  Tagged with:

Beaches are butt of joke

 Beaches  Comments Off on Beaches are butt of joke
Dec 202014
 

Elisha Taylor and Matthew Ross, from Responsible Runners Gold Coast, collecting cigarette butts from Gold Coast beaches. Source: Supplied

STATE laws that ban smoking are a joke with volunteers removing thousands of cigarette butts from patrolled areas at the citys best beaches.

The Responsible Runners group earlier this year began organising a handful of members to spend 30 minutes each weekend collecting trash at Burleigh beach and the Spit. CLIVE PALMER AIDE IN ALLEGED KIDNAPPING PLOT MAGIC MILLIONS TO BECOME AUSTRALIAS RICHEST RACE DAY

At Burleigh on a Saturday and Sunday, runners collect between 200-300 butts in each session.

A data log for both beaches, which is being forwarded to a national marine protection foundation, reveals beachgoers have tossed out more than 16,000 cigarettes at Burleigh and the Spit since March this year.

Responsible Runners Gold coast spokesman Naomi Edwards, a Griffith University researcher, told the Bulletin: It is just constant. We dont want to be picking up these cigarettes. Smoking is bad for you, and this is horrific for the environment.

Cigarette butts dont break down.

You have this toxin and poison leeching into the waterways.

The council last month gave the foreshores a clean bill of health in terms of sand and safety but the beach litter log puts the spotlight of state health enforcement on the citys most important tourist asset.

A Queensland Health spokesman said smoking had been prohibited at Queensland beaches since 2005 with the ban in place between the flags during patrol times.

More here:
Beaches are butt of joke

 Posted by at 1:42 pm  Tagged with:

CNBC Exclusive: CNBC Excerpts: Liberty Media Chairman John Malone Speaks with CNBC's David Faber Today

 Liberty  Comments Off on CNBC Exclusive: CNBC Excerpts: Liberty Media Chairman John Malone Speaks with CNBC's David Faber Today
Nov 202014
 

WHEN: TODAY, WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 19TH

WHERE: CNBC’S BUSINESS DAY PROGRAMMING

In a CNBC EXCLUSIVE interview, CNBC’s David Faber sat down with Liberty Media Chairman John Malone today, Wednesday, November 19th. Excerpts of the interview will run during CNBC’s Business Day programming.

All references must be sourced to CNBC.

MALONE ON NET NEUTRALITY:

http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000331544

MALONE: IT IS A BIT OF A RACE CONDITION. IT WOULD BE UNFORTUNATE IF THE GOVERNMENT INTERVENED TOO HEAVILY BECAUSE REALLY LETTING THIS CAPITAL MARKETPLACE PLAY OUT WILL SEE MULTIPLE TERRESTRIAL PROVIDERS AT LEAST TWO SINCE THE TELEPHONE INDUSTRY IS PRETTY MUCH COMMITTED TO BUILD OUT AND UPGRADE THEIR NETWORK.

MALONE ON MEDIA’S CHANGING LANDSCAPE:

http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000331569

MALONE: I SUSPECT THAT WHEELER REALLY DOESN’T WANT TO GO THERE. HE WANTS TO GO TO SOME KIND OF NEGOTIATED SOLUTION THAT WILL SUFFICE UNTIL THERE IS COMPETITION. MORE COMPETITION. AND EFFECTIVELY ALLOW THE COMCAST DEAL TO GO FORWARD ON SOME NEGOTIATED CONNECTIVITY BASIS WHICH THEN COULD BE SUPERCEDED IF IN FACT TITLE TWO OR SOMETHING LIKE TITLE TWO IS PERSUED THAT WILL BE A BIG COURT CHALLENGE AND WE WON’T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT FOR PROBABLY A COUPLE OF YEARS.

See the original post:
CNBC Exclusive: CNBC Excerpts: Liberty Media Chairman John Malone Speaks with CNBC's David Faber Today




Pierre Teilhard De Chardin | Designer Children | Prometheism | Euvolution