Posted on 10/15/2007 1:15:45 PM PDT by Bon mots
Imagine that there is a new scientific theory that warns of an impending crisis, and points to a way out.
This theory quickly draws support from leading scientists, politicians and celebrities around the world. Research is funded by distinguished philanthropies, and carried out at prestigious universities. The crisis is reported frequently in the media. The science is taught in college and high school classrooms.
-excerpted-
Click HERE for the rest of the essay.
(Excerpt) Read more at michaelcrichton.net ...
The eugenics he refers to is based on racism - against jews, blacks, and most other "not us" races. The Nazis were racist eugencists, as were most of those who signed on at that time. That was the unscientific part of it. Genetics (the kind that only cares about moving the genes forward, not about intellect) will favor the group that breeds the most prolifically, and they are typically going to be less educated, less thoughtful, and more driven by their hormones than by their brains. That cuts right across racial lines.
As Paul Harvey once said, "Gonads are useful for their purpose, but they are no substitute for brains."
Furthermore, while he mentions Margaret Sanger as an early proponent of eugenics he fails to remind us of the two disasterous bi-products of that movement that remain w/ us today; abortion and euthanasia. How is one to separate those two topics from politics?
Finally, he reminds us of the thousands of witches destroyed by superstition but neglects to mention the millions destroyed by "reason", ie communism which was billed as the end of superstitous man.
Overall I found the article interesting but ultimately superficial, which is also a description of his novels.
Most of the Hollywood crowd can't spell "Harvard Medical School", much less graduate from it.
Not going to be required reading for Publik skool students any time soon, though.
It lives on in the legacy of the Democrat Party drawn from the most influential adherent, Woodrow Wilson.
“Why Politicized Science is Dangerous - Michael Crichton”
Does anyone really need another case beyond that of Soviet genetics?
Lysenko pushes Vavilov out of the way, and millions of people starve
due to bankrupt scientific theories (used to modify agricultural practice).
‘Nuff said.
Just with that one case.
You should be able to recognize the quotation without attribution.
How does being less smart than someone else negate the rights that are recognized in the central holding of the Declaration of Independence?
AGW™ ping
Maybe I am reading your statement wrong, and it been a long time since I took a science class but aren’t all theories unproven, hence the reason they are theories. I believe Relativity, Cold Fusion, Wormholes, are all “unproven theories” and I would argue deserve public funding. I am not trying to start a posting fight, I’m just trying to get clarification on your statement.
Though the will eat liberal environmentalists first, since they’re the easier pickings, most likely to be standing in front of the predator in hopes of bonding with it.
THe conservative will either be building a defensive structure or locking and loading.
bump for later read
But it should be!
But is used repetitively by Lilly white CEO’s in order to justify the racism being perpetrated against white males. There is absolutely no proof that diversity is good for business or social ills. In fact more studies have shown that racial diversity results in decrease productivity. The only diversity that may be beneficial is age diversity where older workers can provide their experience to younger workers.
Fight the diversity lie - character should trump race and humility should trump racial pride.
Where did I even imply that I would support any changes to the principles embodies in the Declaration? For the record, I don’t.
I probably wasn’t clear enough. I’ll first try to define what eugenics is, as I understand it. It is the scientific theory that differential breeding between more-fit and less-fit groups of humans will eventually lead to a general decline in the average fitness of the population so affected. It has been expanded in many cases to include recommendations about how to change this situation by “self-direction of human evolution.”
One of Mr. Chrichton’s valid criticisms was that this theory has never been rigorously defined or tested. So, from a purely scientific standpoint, the answer to is to rigorously define and test the theory, not to assume that it is untrue because it has become politically unpopular.
Let us posit that eugenics is indeed rigorously tested, and we find that the basic theory is true. Less-fit people reproducing at a higher rate results in a general decline in the fitness of the population.
I have no idea whether this would actually turn out to be the case. Although, looking at it objectively, there seems to be no logical reason why the laws of natural selection would not apply to humans.
Now what? From here on out, the question of what to do about this situation is not one of science, it is one of philosophy, morality and politics. Science can to some extent predict what the results of various policies might be, but it cannot give any insight on whether policies are moral or ethical. That’s just not what science does, since science by definition is amoral.
FWIW, I would personally oppose any discrimination whatsoever against people because they fit the criteria used to determine who is less fit.
I do, however, think the issue is important enough that it should be studied scientifically. In fact, it is being studied, through numerous studies of genetics and heredity. It just isn’t called eugenics anymore.
BTW, I agree that the racial eugenics of the first half of this century was a bunch of garbage. But there is again no scientific reason that groups of humans who differ on average in height, weight, eye color, skin color, athletic ability, etc.; should not also differ on average in intelligence and other qualities that might be defined as “more fit.”
Judge rules on Algore’s politically motivated “film”:
The case and the “ruling” had to do with Al Gore and his friends’ attempt to “politically indoctrinate” little children with a scientifically flawed film (Per the judges suggestion, only 9 of the errors were concentrated on as a part of this court decision).
Judge Burton: “I turn to [An Inconvenient Truth] the film. The following is clear:
“... science is used, in the hands of a talented politician and communicator, to make a political statement and to support a political programme. ...”
... the Defendant, does not challenge that the film promotes political views. .................”
Excerpts of the other salient points are provided below (the Films “errors” are snipped):
England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2007/2288.html
Case No: CO/3615/2007 Hearing dates: 27, 28 September, 1, 2 October 2007 Before: MR JUSTICE BURTON
Stuart Dimmock - Claimant — Mr Paul Downes and Miss Emily Saunderson (instructed by Malletts) for the Claimant
-vs-
Sec. State for Education and Skills Defendant — Mr Martin Chamberlain (instructed by Treasury Solicitors) for the Defendant
[Judge] Burton:
Stuart Dimmock is a father of two sons at state school and a school governor. He has brought an application to declare unlawful a decision by the then Secretary of State for Education and Skills to distribute to every state secondary school in the United Kingdom a copy of former US Vice-President Al Gore’s film, An Inconvenient Truth (”AIT”), ..... I have had very considerable assistance from both the very able Counsel, Paul Downes for the Claimant and Martin Chamberlain for the Defendant, and their respective teams.
The context and nub of the dispute are the statutory provisions described in their side headings as respectively relating to “political indoctrination” and to the “duty to secure balanced treatment of political issues” in schools, now contained in ss406 and 407 of the Education Act 1996, which derive from the identical provisions in ss44 and 45 of the Education (No 2) Act 1986. The provisions read as follows:
406. The local education authority, governing body and head teachers shall forbid … the promotion of partisan political views in the teaching of any subject in the school.
407. The local education authority, governing body and head teacher shall take such steps as are reasonably practicable to secure that where political issues are brought to the attention of pupils while they are (a) in attendance at a maintained school, or (b) taking part in extra-curricular activities which are provided or organised for registered pupils at the school by or on behalf of the school they are offered a balanced presentation of opposing views.”
I viewed the film at the parties’ request..... It is now common ground that it is not simply a science film – ... – but that it is a political film.. . Its theme is not merely the fact that there is global warming,... but that urgent, and if necessary expensive and inconvenient, steps must be taken to counter it, many of which are spelt out.
Paul Downes... has established his case that the views in the film are political by submitting that Mr Gore promotes an apocalyptic vision, which would be used to influence a vast array of political policies, which he illustrates ...:
“(i) Fiscal policy and the way that a whole variety of activities are taxed, including fuel consumption, travel and manufacturing …
(ii) Investment policy and the way that governments encourage directly and indirectly various forms of activity.
(iii) Energy policy and the fuels (in particular nuclear) employed for the future.
(iv) Foreign policy and the relationship held with nations that consume and/or produce carbon-based fuels.”
... the Defendant, does not challenge that the film promotes political views. .................”
In the DEFRA [the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs] leaflet ... there was this one sentence summary:
“Mr Johnson said that influencing the opinions of children was crucial to developing a long term view on the environment among the public.”
After the pre-action correspondence from the Claimant, and on the very day the Judicial Review Claim Form was issued, a somewhat differently worded news release was issued by the Defendant dated 2 May 2007:
“....This pack will help to give young people information and inspiration to understand and debate the issues around climate change...”
The explanation for the distribution to all schools is now given in these proceedings in the witness statement of Ms Julie Bramman of the DES:
“8. …I should say at once that it was recognised from the start that parts of the Film contained views about public policy and how we should respond to climate change. The aim of distributing the film was not to promote those views, but rather to present the science of climate change in an engaging way and to promote and encourage debate on the political issues raised by that science.”
...the meaning of partisan, as in partisan political views: ...
Partisan
... Mr Downes pointed to dictionary definitions suggesting the relevance of commitment, or adherence to a cause. In my judgment, the best simile for it might be “one sided”. Mr Downes, in paragraph 27 of his skeleton argument, helpfully suggested that there were factors that could be considered by a court in determining whether the expression or promotion of a particular view could evidence or indicate partisan promotion of those views:
“(i) A superficial treatment of the subject matter typified by portraying factual or philosophical premises as being self-evident or trite with insufficient explanation or justification and without any indication that they may be the subject of legitimate controversy; the misleading use of scientific data; misrepresentations and half-truths; and one-sidedness.
(ii) The deployment of material in such a way as to prevent pupils meaningfully testing the veracity of the material and forming an independent understanding as to how reliable it is.
(iii) The exaltation of protagonists and their motives coupled with the demonisation of opponents and their motives.
(iv) The derivation of a moral expedient from assumed consequences requiring the viewer to adopt a particular view and course of action in order to do “right” as opposed to “wrong.”
This is clearly a useful analysis.
Local educational authority to forbid the promotion of partisan views in the teaching of any subject in the school
“....What is forbidden by the statute is, as the side heading makes clear, “political indoctrination”. If a teacher uses the platform of a classroom to promote partisan political views in the teaching of any subject, then that would offend against the statute.
If on the other hand a teacher, in the course of a school day and as part of the syllabus, presents to his pupils, no doubt with the appropriate setting and with proper tuition and debate, a film or document which itself promotes in a partisan way some political view, that cannot possibly in my judgment be the mischief against which the statute was intended to protect pupils.
It would not only lead to bland education, but to education which did not give the opportunity to pupils to learn about views with which they might, vehemently or otherwise, either agree or disagree. I conclude that the mere distribution by the Defendant to schools to facilitate their showing the film, and accompanied by guidance, to which I shall refer, is not per se, or irremediably, a promotion of those partisan political views.
Balanced Presentation
.....the issue of whether there is facilitated by the DES what is forbidden, namely the promotion by the school of partisan political views, depends in substantial part on the context, and in this case on its Guidance Note. Such Guidance Note is also obviously relevant in relation to s407. On occasions during the hearing, Mr Chamberlain indicated that there were matters that could be left to the good sense and the knowledge of teachers, whether of science, geography or of citizenship. Trust in such teachers is of course, one hopes, always a given. .....
.....There is nothing to prevent (to take an extreme case) there being a strong preference for a theory – if it were a political one – that the moon is not made out of green cheese, and hence a minimal, but dispassionate, reference to the alternative theory. The balanced approach does not involve equality. In my judgment, the word “balanced” in s407 means nothing more than fair and dispassionate.
The Film
I turn to AIT, the film. The following is clear:
i) It is substantially founded upon scientific research and fact, albeit that the science is used, in the hands of a talented politician and communicator, to make a political statement and to support a political programme. ...”
The Errors [snipped]
The Guidance
“... in order to establish and confirm that the purpose of sending the films to schools is not so as to “influence the opinions of children” (paragraph 7 above) but so as to “stimulate children into discussing climate change and global warming in school classes” (paragraph 6 above) a Guidance Note must be incorporated into the pack, and that it is not sufficient simply to have the facility to cross-refer to it on an educational website..... it is noteworthy that in the (unamended) Guidance Note there is no or no adequate discussion at all, either by way of description or by way of raising relevant questions for discussion, in relation to any of the above 9 ‘errors’, the first two of which are at any rate apparently based on non-existent or misunderstood evidence, and the balance of which are or may be based upon lack of knowledge or appreciation of the scientific position, and all of which are significant planks in Mr Gores’s ‘political’ argumentation. ...”
“...One particular change in the section on “Citizenship: Planning a whole day event on climate change” is of some significance:
“..... Invite in a guest speaker to go over the issues raised across the day and discuss solutions … But please remember that teaching staff must not promote any particular political response to climate change and, when such potential responses are brought to the attention of pupils, must try to ensure that pupils are offered a balanced presentation of opposing views.”
The amended Guidance Note contains in its introduction a new and significant passage:
“[Schools] must bear in mind the following points
* AIT promotes partisan political views (that is to say, one sided views about political issues)
* teaching staff must be careful to ensure that they do not themselves promote those views;
* in order to make sure of that, they should take care to help pupils examine the scientific evidence critically (rather than simply accepting what is said at face value) and to point out where Gore’s view may be inaccurate or departs from that of mainstream scientific opinion;
* where the film suggests that views should take particular action at the political level (e.g. to lobby their democratic representatives to vote for measures to cut carbon emissions), teaching staff must be careful to offer pupils a balanced presentation of opposing views and not to promote either the view expressed in the film or any other particular view.
“...I am satisfied that, with the Guidance Note, as amended, the Defendant is setting the film into a context in which it can be shown by teachers, and not so that the Defendant itself or the schools are promoting partisan views contained in the film, and is putting it into a context in which a balanced presentation of opposing views can and will be offered. There is no call for the Defendant to support the more extreme views of Mr Gore – indeed the Government’s adherence is to the IPCC views - ...and that there are views of “sceptics” who do not accept even the consensus views of the IPCC. The Defendant will not be promoting partisan political views by enabling the showing of AIT in the context of the discussions facilitated by the Guidance Note, and is not under a duty to forbid the presentation of it in that context.
“... It is plain that the original press releases of February were enthusiastically supportive of the film, and did initially indicate an intent to “influence”. ....As Mr Downes has pointed out, if it has taken this hearing to identify and correct the flaws, it is impossible to think that teachers could have done so untutored. I am satisfied that, because insufficient attempt was made to counter the more one-sided views of Mr Gore, and, to some extent, by silence in the Guidance Note, those views were adopted, or at any rate discussion of them was not facilitated (and no adequate warning was given), there would have been a breach of ss406 and 407 of the Act but for the bringing of these proceedings and the conclusion that has now eventuated. Indeed the spirit of co-operation in which this hearing has been carried through is a tribute to constructive litigation.
In the circumstances, and for those reasons, in the light of the changes to the Guidance Note which the Defendant has agreed to make, and has indeed already made, and upon the Defendant’s agreeing to send such amended Guidance Note out in hard copy, no order is made on this application, save in relation to costs, on which I shall hear Counsel.
bttt
If we "removed" everyone below plus three sigma on the "bell curve". Tomorrow we would have a whole new "bell curve" and we would have to start all over again. It would get pretty darn lonely real fast. I won't say that the world would be better off with fewer people but it seems as a society climbs away from the subsistence level it's birth rate declines. Perhaps those at the subsistence level have higher birth rates because science has been applied in their behalf to lower the death rate?
I'm betting that eventually the dynamics of population growth and decay will produce a stable overall number (below the current six billion!).
Regards,
GtG
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.