[Sherman Logan]

His claim is that eugenics was never tested using rigorous definitions.

So instead of swinging over to the other side and denouncing it as unscientific, with about as much evidence, why not test it rigorously to see if less intelligent people tend to have less intelligent offspring?

If they are, and they reproduce at a higher rate than the more intelligent, then the worst fears of the eugenicists of 1900 are likely to come true eventually.

I agree with most of what Mike says, but a lot of his criticism of eugenics is guilt by association. “The Nazis were eugenicists, so the very concept of eugenics must be evil.”

[SlowBoat407]

I agree with most of what Mike says, but a lot of his criticism of eugenics is guilt by association. “The Nazis were eugenicists, so the very concept of eugenics must be evil.”

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."

[Captain Rhino]

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

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?