New waves of Eugenics in the Netherlands

Post Reply New Topic

this should have been locked already
insulting france always and now the netherlands too
too funny

discouraging the middleclass to reproduce is more eugenetic than a handfull assisted suicides in some years

Because I'm already afraid of getting banned for supporting eugenics in this thread. Starting a thread on "the importance of eugenics" is only going to make the likelihood of my getting banned for political reasons more likely. In my experience, Liberals tend to be very unforgiving with respect to opinions that offend them. And supporting eugenics is sure to offend a lot of people!

Also, I've always been spending way more time on this discussion than I can afford. There's a reason I haven't been active here in a long time. Once I get started, it's hard to stop... and it tends to consume way more time than I can actually spare.



Fair point.

The discussion does seem to have gotten quite off-topic indeed.



Discouraging the middleclass to reproduce is dysgenic, as the middle classes have typically been very well-organised, very well-cultured, very well-adjusted and highly motivated, productive members of society with very low crime rates.

In any sane society, the middleclasses would be encouraged to reproduce at higher rates.

Threads most often do get derailed here on Wrong Planet. I do not know exactly why this happens, my guess is some sort of executive functioning issue. When I first came here it used to really bother me until I got somewhat used to it and realized I do it and go along with it also.

There is nothing in the Netherlands resembling the eugenics that happened in America and Germany in the last century. That does not mean there is no eugenics going on. The 20th-century eugenics used medical personnel to carry eugenics out. Obviously, doctor-assisted suicide uses medical personnel. It is argued that doctor-assisted suicide is ethical in part because it ends the horrible life of the volunteer. That was the same justification used by 20th-century eugenists. As discussed earlier in this thread eugenics has a really bad reputation due to the way Nazis both carried it out and went beyond it. If you are a eugenicist you likely know if you just can't bring back 20th-century eugenics at this point. With doctor-assisted suicide and other forms of "consumer eugenics" you not only have a eugenics issue but a freedom of choice to do what you do with your own body issue which has the potential to make "consumer eugenics" acceptable. It could be a way to for eugenicists a getting what little eugenics they can get at this point. The hope would be that once a little tiny bit of eugenics is accepted it would make it easier for more eugenics to become acceptable.

It is suspicious to me that this seems to be aimed at the mentally ill and Autistics in particular.

There IS no eugenics going on in the Netherlands. In fact, one might argue that the policies of the Dutch government are mostly dysgenic in nature.



Eugenics has a really bad reputation because the Nazis applied Eugenics and you're not allowed to think of any the Nazis did as beneficial.

Or maybe almost everything. Hitler was a vegetarian, but for some reason it never became taboo to be a vegetarian. And then there's issues like animal rights, environmentalism and anti-smoking campaigns, which are now all mainstream policies. But that's more or less where it stops. Pretty much everything else even remotely associated with the Nazis has become a taboo in this age of political correctness (aka Orwellian censorship), whether it's benign or harmful.



Why not?

Just a few decades ago, homosexuality was a complete taboo. It was considered a form of sexual depravity and it was illegal in quite a few Western countries. Today, homosexuality is considered just a normal variation on human sexuality.

Societal norms can change a lot in a few decades, and what is highly immoral at one point in time can be considered completely normal just a few decades later... and vice versa!



Either way, eugenicists have had no power whatsoever in Western countries since the 1960s. Society today is dominated by Cultural Marxists, who not only abhor eugenics but favor a myriad of policies that are dysgenic in nature.

Most eugenicists understand that 20th century eugenics would not be accepted today.

Like you said things change and the term eugenics has expanded to mean any attempt to improve/prevent deterioration of humanity through genes be it breeding or maybe editing in the future. It can be argued that the Nazis were much more dysgenic then the Netherlands because it was much more widely appleid and the science was less advanced

Most eugenicists understand that we increasingly live in an upside down Orwellian world, where everything good is labeled evil and everything evil is labeled good... where everything normal is labeled abhorrent and everything abhorrent is labeled normal.





Ït doesn't matter how you define it. Not only is eugenics not applied today anywhere in the West, but actual policies are DYSGENIC. That means that have a negative impact on the quality of the gene pool. And - disturbingly - this seems to be at least partially on purpose.





Now, China is a different story!



That's one of the most nonsensical statements I've seen in a long while!

Last edited by aspiesavant on 06 Jul 2018, 4:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.

One of the problem with disability or difference labels is that it opens the door to eugenics and discussions about things like eugenics. I say those of use who are on the margins of society should not accept such labels, but instead should organize and take defensive actions.

Eugenics is a good thing. Treating Autism as a disorder is a bad thing!

Autism is not a disorder. It is just a normal part of human biodiversity, albeit at the edges.

Treating Autism as a disorder is far more harmful for people with Autism than the notion of eugenics. It is because we treat it as a disorder that society still treats us as inferior people, even though many of the world's greatest genius exhibit very strong traits of Autism.

What you should be worrying about is not eugenics. What you should be worrying about is potential sexual partners, potential friends and potential employers ignoring you or treating you in a condescending manner because you happen to be physically and/or socially clumsy.

Whether society supports or rejects the notion of eugenics won't change the fact that Autistic people will be treated as inferior people as long as Autism is considered a disability instead of just an atypical neurotype.

Eugenics is a horrible and completely bogus pseudo science. And accepting any difference or disability label opens the door to being subjected to it.

The current Autism / Asperger's hysteria is a resurgence of eugenics.


The Myth of Autism: Medicalising Men's and Boys' Social and Emotional Competence 2010th Edition
Sami Timimi etal

Its not pseudo science at all. Humans bred dogs to fit specific jobs and they got better at it, its the same principle but applied to humans.

Two tall parents are more likely to have tall offspring.

People develop on account of both genetics and environment. We must fight against Eugenics. And yes, the original interest in Autism / Asperger's, is from the pre-war eugenics movement.

The guy who started the lab at Yale was real big in it.

Eugenics is not based on science, not at all.

So a pug is just as likely to give birth to a large dog as a Great Dane then?

Dog breeds has nothing to do with human families or races.

Genetics does not determine how people are. And all the more so when you talk about things like Autism / Aspergers.

Genetics is literally what makes people human. Do you not believe in evolution?