The New York Times occasionally rears the ugly head of it’s most extreme left wing. In this article published on October 13, by Joshua Krisch, they go a bit further than even that, and actually wade into the murky waters of neo-nazi propaganda in this subtle yet disturbing perspective.
Krisch equates eugenics with racism, and at least on that point he is ultimately correct. But for some reason, he seems to decide that rudimentary science from 1924 is somehow disconnected from the highly sophisticated scientific techniques of today. Please, therefore, erase the names of Isaac Newton and Ben Franklin from the scientific books of today, because nowadays cooking apples with a bolt of lightening would surely qualify only as witchcraft and sorcery, not the early works of legitimate “science.”
“When the Eugenics Record Office opened its doors in 1910, the founding scientists were considered progressives, intent on applying classic genetics to breeding better citizens.”
WTF Batman? Is that quote from something Jim Hudson said at the opening of the Hudson Alpha Institute For Biotechnology? I guess maybe not, if you believe genomics will only ever be applied to curing the disease of an already born child – but then, you might also believe that abortion is illegal and that Chinese families are encouraged to have ten children each. Or maybe you don’t think test tube engineering is eugenics – since there’s no human coitus involved, just mechanically separated parts.
But Mr. Micklos points out that the bigotry that gave rise to eugenics was never really about the science.
“It doesn’t take any fancy scientific theory for people to hate one another,” he said.
Ok. I think I understand now. The bigotry and hatred of eugenics doesn’t really need science. But, if we rename eugenics and call it “genomics” then there will be a really good and legitimate scientific basis for compulsory healthcare, discrimination, and the hatred evoked. Good healthcare risks are good citizens. Right?
I have to give Mr. Kirsch some credit for his sense of humor, or is it sarcasm, or is it satire… or is it merely a question? Maybe all of the above for a sophisticated reader, but for most who scan the news quickly missing the caveats, the article cultivates the notion that eugenics and genomics are somehow different and that genomics is therefore acceptable, even if the results of yesteryear’s science is essentially exactly the same – excepting that they are really good at it nowadays.
© 2014 – Jim Casey
TOCC.tv Red HOT Uploads