Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Environmentalist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sam who wrote (16710)	10/7/2007 5:39:44 PM
From: longnshort	Respond to of 36917

"Businessweek" I dumped that liberal rag 20 years ago, my god man read their editorials, stories. When I canceled I addressed the letter to Socialistweek

To: Sam who wrote (16710)	10/7/2007 11:04:50 PM
From: average joe	Respond to of 36917

"Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had." “Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled.” "Chesterton, G.K. Eugenics and Other Evils: An Argument Against the Scientifically Organized Society. Edited by Michael W. Perry. Seattle: Inkling Books, 2000. Originally published in 1922, this astonishingly prescient text has much to say about our understanding of eugenics then (and now), and about the mass seduction of pseudoscience. Chesterton's was one of the few voices to oppose eugenics in the early twentieth century. He saw right through it as fraudulent on every level, and he predicted where it would lead, with great accuracy. His critics were legion; they reviled him as reactionary, ridiculous, ignorant, hysterical, incoherent, and blindly prejudiced, noting with dismay that "his influence in leading people in the wrong direction is considerable." Yet Chesterton was right and the consensus of scientists, political leaders, and the intelligentsia was wrong. Chesterton lived to see the horrors of Nazi Germany. This book is worth reading because, in retrospect, it is clear that Chesterton's arguments were perfectly sensible and deserving of an answer, and yet he was simply shouted down. And because the most repellant ideas of eugenics are being promoted again in the twenty-first century, under various guises. The editor of this edition has included many quotations from eugenicists of the 1920s, which read astonishingly like the words of contemporary prophets of doom. Some things never change - including, unfortunately, the gullibility of press and public. We human beings don't like to look back at our past mistakes. But we should." NEXT Bibliography, Pages 426, 427 Michael CRICHTON