Caste systems in any country is a form of selective propagation of traits, not always necessarily biological, but often behavioural and ideological. Indian caste system was selective based on birth and karma and centuries of breeding thusly created physical caste specific traits.
A pretty good overview, though with more focus on theory. Some thoughts: Ashkenazi Jews have the Tay-Sachs issue, not all Jews. You can't merely have a culture as some reflective, self-conscious tool through which we "enrich" ourselves as this doesn't account for its coming to being. Granted, once it becomes self-conscious, then we can then go in and try and direct it, but this happens much, much later. The analysis has to be based in "biology" (what we find "attractive" or "disgusting" etc.). I think you can even add un-reflective tools (magic, myth, etc.) as eugenic. I liked the "Harvard" analysis in terms of thinking of eugenics, but this analysis works for all institutions and it isn't clear at what level eugenics is part of the drive of the institution. Either way, I haven't investigated this, appreciate the thought. For your critiques - we lower the gene IQ stock, people trapped in their social pool, etc. - I think some will see as a positive in a future world where technology will be self-functioning. If we don't need but a handful of people to work the tools of control, then lowering the IQ is a net positive (more easily controlled).
Great vid, could you do something on Hans-Georg Gadamer and hermeneutics?
Every time we talk about "health" we're actually calling eugenics. A "healthy" baby is a eugenic claim.
Caste systems in any country is a form of selective propagation of traits, not always necessarily biological, but often behavioural and ideological.
Indian caste system was selective based on birth and karma and centuries of breeding thusly created physical caste specific traits.
A pretty good overview, though with more focus on theory. Some thoughts:
Ashkenazi Jews have the Tay-Sachs issue, not all Jews.
You can't merely have a culture as some reflective, self-conscious tool through which we "enrich" ourselves as this doesn't account for its coming to being. Granted, once it becomes self-conscious, then we can then go in and try and direct it, but this happens much, much later. The analysis has to be based in "biology" (what we find "attractive" or "disgusting" etc.). I think you can even add un-reflective tools (magic, myth, etc.) as eugenic.
I liked the "Harvard" analysis in terms of thinking of eugenics, but this analysis works for all institutions and it isn't clear at what level eugenics is part of the drive of the institution. Either way, I haven't investigated this, appreciate the thought.
For your critiques - we lower the gene IQ stock, people trapped in their social pool, etc. - I think some will see as a positive in a future world where technology will be self-functioning. If we don't need but a handful of people to work the tools of control, then lowering the IQ is a net positive (more easily controlled).
I'm here
How does mass migration aka weapons of mass migration factor into this
First like 👍
I hope nothing happened to you. It’s been some time.
I return.
@@thinkculture6106 excellent news