Eugenics was stupid and global warming is not.
Eugenics was stupid and global warming is not. And to use the former to dispute the latter is stupid and not worth debate. 150 years ago science was not as disciplined, or knowledgeable as it is today.
Eugenics was formulated a long time ago when our thinking was still quite primitive |
And to use the former to dispute the latter is stupid and not worth debate. 150 years ago science was not as disciplined, or knowledgeable as it is today.
First of all, Eugenics became a Science like 100 years ago only, and still had serious supporters under scientists until aro 1955 or so - without the racist component, that is.
Eugenics was formulated a long time ago when our thinking was still quite primitive, sure, but... |
yes, in hindsight it may look like being primitive, but that was certainly not the case in it's heydays, when it was massively supported by 97% of those scientists, who truly understood and had done research into the same matter. Furthermore, one could argue, that with Darwin's "Survival of the fittest" in mind, Eugenics to them only added some extra 'help' to enhance the evolution towards better and more fit future generations!
Back then Eugenics was considered just as "scientific" and thus supported by just as much real evidence as is the Man-made Global Warming these days. Adding authenticity to that, "how could 97% of the scientists all be wrong?".
The similarities are all just too obvious, like 1:1, and only the future will tell us more by either confirming or ridiculing the stupidity of those naive - or corrupted? - so called scientists back in the early 21st century.
Did you read the Crichton article or not? Be honest, a "yes" or "no" will do. |
|
