I haven’t read the article. Maybe they were just saying “more children are needed and we’re doing our part”. I’m not sure of this is really about them being arrogant. It could be either or.
You don’t have to go out of your way to defend things that are putting a nice veneer on eugenics.
And for the record, if you read the article it’s clearly about them being arrogant and generally absolutely fucking weird. “If more people like us don’t have children, the world will stop seeing innovation and economic prosperity. It’s very important that the right people reproduce.”
“If more people like us don’t have children, the world will stop seeing innovation and economic prosperity. It’s very important that the right people reproduce.”
I have now read the article, and what you just quoted is nowhere to be found. I would really like to know where you found the text you quoted.
In fact, neither the article nor the interviewees defended eugenics, at all. They even addressed the issue explicitly near the end of the text.
I’m not defending these people, or saying that they are saints, but there was no indication that they were supporting eugenics. To the contrary, they spoke against it.
They “spoke out against it” while saying and doing things that are literally the definition of positive eugenics.
“In other words, positive eugenics is aimed at encouraging reproduction among the genetically advantaged, for example, the eminently intelligent, the healthy, and the successful. Possible approaches include financial and political stimuli, targeted demographic analyses, in vitro fertilization, egg transplants, and cloning.”
I have now read the article, and it does indeed seem like this narrative was unfounded and I was right. I could not find any support for eugenics in the article, and the interviewees even spoke against it explicitly.
You should read the article yourself, it’s actually quite insightful.
I haven’t read the article. Maybe they were just saying “more children are needed and we’re doing our part”. I’m not sure of this is really about them being arrogant. It could be either or.
You don’t have to go out of your way to defend things that are putting a nice veneer on eugenics.
And for the record, if you read the article it’s clearly about them being arrogant and generally absolutely fucking weird. “If more people like us don’t have children, the world will stop seeing innovation and economic prosperity. It’s very important that the right people reproduce.”
I have now read the article, and what you just quoted is nowhere to be found. I would really like to know where you found the text you quoted.
In fact, neither the article nor the interviewees defended eugenics, at all. They even addressed the issue explicitly near the end of the text.
I’m not defending these people, or saying that they are saints, but there was no indication that they were supporting eugenics. To the contrary, they spoke against it.
They “spoke out against it” while saying and doing things that are literally the definition of positive eugenics.
“In other words, positive eugenics is aimed at encouraging reproduction among the genetically advantaged, for example, the eminently intelligent, the healthy, and the successful. Possible approaches include financial and political stimuli, targeted demographic analyses, in vitro fertilization, egg transplants, and cloning.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics
If only there was a way to find the information you’re missing
I have now read the article, and it does indeed seem like this narrative was unfounded and I was right. I could not find any support for eugenics in the article, and the interviewees even spoke against it explicitly.
You should read the article yourself, it’s actually quite insightful.