Nicola Tesla. Stifled Hero.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by geobro

 

a.t.s is changing

Yeah.
I've noticed.

Warning, off topic post... I'm pretty damn new to ats. But I realy like this forum. And I may be ignorant to how it used to be, but it really sucks to read these posts on every thread I wander into (ats is changing, ats used to be awesome, what happened to ats) I mean there are entire threads on these topics. It makes me feel like I missed the boat (so to speak), And makes me think twice about joining discussions everyone is having. Mostly because people get shut down for being new members. Sorry for the rant, I will say that this website has opened my eyes to many new subjects and perspectives. So bravo for that

reply to post by Phage

You are drawing lots of conclusions saying he wasn't working for mankind. Eugenisist believe they are working for the bettermeant of mankind. If you made a list of just about every person you thought highly of you would find issues with every persons words or writings at some point in time. Like how science hates religion but yet most all great scientist of the past were extremly religious so modern science fad followers hate their own founding fathers.

You has typo with '"talking" vs taking in the second paragraph Phage.

I fail to see why you even made this thread in the first place as if Tesla was born in our generation where racism is still rampant. In his, it was ingrained into a young adult by society eugenics was an extension of it.

tesla, the same man who wanted free energy to the world? its a shame people know so little about tesla when we should be studying this mans inventions, and not try and downplay this man because of certain views he had about fat people.

Originally posted by TheOd

Originally posted by Phage
The work of Nicola Tesla ...there is no doubt that he was a very talented man. While his grasp of more advanced science was often wacky (a firm believer in "ether"),

I see you don't understand this concept.

indeed, the fact that he needs to attack tesla, for idle comments at that [there is NO PROOF Tesla ever acted upon such beliefs or spoke up in hitlers favor, like edison], is proof enough of tesla's innocence in the matter.

phage is well known here as a transhumanist [supports the supplanting of the human race by a "superior race" of cyborgized automata], a known defender of MONSATAN and the corruption of human and other genomes, known defender of eco-criminal black ops geo-engineering, grand ATS Inquisitor, Protector and Apologist of orthordox MIC/Corporate sponsored baconian "science"** and the whoredoms of it's priesthood.
in short, he doesn't care about people [other than his clique ] being used as guinea pigs by any of the above, deluded by the false promises of "godlike" immortality that spew forth from Ahriman's*** current chief prophet:kurzweil.

yet nobody's posting hit pieces about him.



+++++++++++
poor form phage,

lets see some of your accomplishments before you go around assassinating Tesla's character and works; until then it's just a greasy, years old pot, used for deep frying corn-dogs trying to call a shiny new CorningWare pot black

*

Here we begin to sense the chill that emanates from the hottest field in the academic world. The unspoken and largely unconscious premise of the wrangling over neuroscience's strategic high ground is: We now live in an age in which science is a court from which there is no appeal. And the issue this time around, at the end of the twentieth century, is not the evolution of the species, which can seem a remote business, but the nature of our own precious inner selves.

The elders of the field, such as Wilson, are well aware of all this and are cautious, or cautious compared to the new generation. Wilson still holds out the possibility—I think he doubts it, but he still holds out the possibility—that at some point in evolutionary history, culture began to influence the development of the human brain in ways that cannot be explained by strict Darwinian theory. But the new generation of neuroscientists are not cautious for a second. In private conversations, the bull sessions, as it were, that create the mental atmosphere of any hot new science—and I love talking to these people—they express an uncompromising determinism.

They start with the most famous statement in all of modern philosophy, Descartes's "Cogito ergo sum," "I think, therefore I am," which they regard as the essence of "dualism," the old–fashioned notion that the mind is something distinct from its mechanism, the brain and the body. (I will get to the second most famous statement in a moment.) This is also known as the "ghost in the machine" fallacy, the quaint belief that there is a ghostly "self" somewhere inside the brain that interprets and directs its operations. Neuroscientists involved in three–dimensional electroencephalography will tell you that there is not even any one place in the brain where consciousness or self–consciousness (Cogito ergo sum) is located. This is merely an illusion created by a medley of neurological systems acting in concert. The young generation takes this yet one step further. Since consciousness and thought are entirely physical products of your brain and nervous system—and since your brain arrived fully imprinted at birth—what makes you think you have free will? Where is it going to come from? What "ghost," what "mind," what "self," what "soul," what anything that will not be immediately grabbed by those scornful quotation marks, is going to bubble up your brain stem to give it to you? I have heard neuroscientists theorize that, given computers of sufficient power and sophistication, it would be possible to predict the course of any human being's life moment by moment, including the fact that the poor devil was about to shake his head over the very idea. I doubt that any Calvinist of the sixteenth century ever believed so completely in predestination as these, the hottest and most intensely rational young scientists in the United States at the end of the twentieth.

The Neuroscientific POV

**

*** The Advent Of Ahriman

Physics as a discipline has broken down during WW 2. The String Theory which emanated out of the dread halls of academia is a false stage show, by the looks of it

reply to post by purplemer

What is your problem with eugenics..

You did not provide and example of eugenics.
Eugenics is the concept of "culling" by not allowing those considered by...someone...unfit to reproduce.

reply to post by Bicent76

what is the point of this thread?

The point of this thread has been explicitly stated several times.

There is no denying Tesla's contributions to our society but should a man who advocated the mandatory sterilization of those he considered unsuitable be considered a hero of mankind?

reply to post by inalienabletruth

You are drawing lots of conclusions saying he wasn't working for mankind. Eugenisist believe they are working for the bettermeant of mankind.

Yes. Their version of mankind. A version which forced sterilization on those who were not considered up to par.

If you made a list of just about every person you thought highly of you would find issues with every persons words or writings at some point in time.

Yes. I used to think very highly of Thomas Jefferson, the man. I've learned more about him and no longer do. That does not mean I reject his contributions, it means I do not idolize him as a hero.

Concerning eugenics:

It is not the gene which prescribes the outcome of the future...

Even a Cat in the right place, right time and with basic rudimentary self determination, could push that big red flashing button...and change the course of history.

even if he didn't make it...the button I mean...

Hmmm, just wrote a research paper on Tesla last semester and read every book on him I could find at my local library and Barnes and Nobel, including owning a copy of “Nikola Tesla – My Inventions and Other Writings.”

I do not see where you are coming up with these conclusions on an evil eugenicist.

From page 107 of “Nikola Tesla – My Inventions and Other Writings”

The First Problem: How To Increase the Human Mass- The Burning of Atmospheric Nitrogen.
Viewed generally, there are two ways of increasing the mass of mankind: first by aiding and maintaining those forces and conditions which tend to increase it; and, second, by opposing and reducing those which tend to diminish it.

If you were a eugenicist, why would your personal writings be on a way to increase the human mass?
Also note that he is refering to humans, not any particular race.

He continues on pg 109

Conversely, it scarcely need be stated that everything that is against the teachings of religion and the laws of hygiene is tending to decrease the mass. Whisky, wine, tea, coffee, tobacco, and other such stimulants are responsible for the shortening of the lives of many, and ought to be used with moderation. But I do not think that rigorous measures of suppression of habits followed through many generations is commendable. It is wiser to preach moderation than abstinence.

That last part was similar to my “wellness and fitness” course I took, promoting a healthy lifestyle, so nefarious indeed.

But the diabolic plans get more sinister as he continues

For every person who perishes from the effects of a stimulant, at least a thousand die from the consequences of drinking impure water. This precious fluid, which daily infuses new life into us, is likewise the chief vehicle through which disease and death enter our bodies……

By systematic purification and sterilization of the drinking-water the human mass would be very considerably increased. It should be made a rigid rule- which might be enforced by law- to boil or sterilize otherwise the drinking-water in every household and public place.

On the electric debate, Tesla gave people the 200,000 light bulbs lit up at the World Fair in 1893, and the Niagara Falls Power Plant using AC.

What did Edison do with AC?

reply to post by Phage


WoW nice topic.
If what you say is true, then it would seem that Tesla had a split personality.
But English was not his first language, so maybe he was misinterpreted or
he expressed something wrongly in English

reply to post by IntrinsicMotivation

If you were a eugenicist, why would your personal writings be on a way to increase the human mass? Also note that he is refering to humans, not any particular race.

You don't seem to understand the idea of eugenics. Yes, the idea was to increase the number of people. The "right kind" of people, in the opinion of the eugenicists. Some eugenicists did advocate sterilization with race as a criterion. I don't find evidence of that in Tesla's words nor did I say he advocated such.

That last part was similar to my “wellness and fitness” course I took, promoting a healthy lifestyle, so nefarious indeed.

I don't see what that has to do with forced sterilization of those considered unfit to reproduce.

By systematic purification and sterilization of the drinking-water the human mass would be very considerably increased.

Funny you should use a quote like that. He also advocated the forced sterilization of those he considered unfit participate in that increase.

Edison was not a wonderful human being. But he was a human being and he was anti-eugenics.

reply to post by Phage


I think your taking that quote a lil to far, he was talking about the mentally ill. If that is even a quotation and not a 2nd hand quote etc.

Ask any doctor about reproduction in cases where hereditary genetic disorders can be passed down to the off spring and see what their scientific opinion will be..

Making a mountain out of a mole hill.. Don't get me wrong its a decent thread phage, just a lil over the top.

Originally posted by Phage
... Deciding that someone is inferior, not worth having children. A drag on the human "race". "Sorry sir, you don't qualify"...snip.

Regardless of what overhyped articles you may have read on Eugenics, it was never about removing people from reproduction, it was removing traits.
Think designer babies as the aim. Not so much blue eyes and other superficial stuff, but removal of bad genes. genetic disorders and the like.
Back in time, they didn't really see such science as possible, now its not just seen as possible, its already being instituted in small ways.
Not deciding who is not worthy of reproduction, but which traits. If its done logically and with the betterment of the species in mind (raise the collective IQ, healthy hearts, etc) while allowing for personal liberties, I see no issue with it. The only argument against such stuff is irrational emotions that hold no solid counter logic.

Perhaps you should freshen up a bit on what eugenics truly is today
snippit

four-year old Ashanthi DeSilva, a child with SCIDS (Severe Combined Immune Deficiency Syndrome), became the first patient to be successfully treated using gene therapy as part of a clinical trial at the National Institutes of Health. As of early 2007, she remained in good health and was attending college. Researchers are now working on several promising studies that use gene therapy to combat blindness, cancer and bone marrow syndromes.

Imagine a world where we can assure our offspring won't have to deal at all with such issues due to simple treatments during pregnancy. This is the role of eugenics...to kill off bad traits, not bad people.

Imagine a bit further now. a test done within days of conception as the rna starts replicating. a test showing lifelong severe debilitating illness that has no treatment or cure..of simply pain and perhaps early death. Is life given strictly for life, or should quality of life be a consideration. Is it more cruel to stop such pain before it starts, or have it and bring into this world a experience of hell on earth for that individual.

What is Eugenics

Although eugenics became a popular movement in the United States, at its core was a research effort to apply Mendel's laws to the inheritance of human traits. Eugenics researchers attempted to trace the inheritance of a trait through a family tree, or pedigree. They sought to recognize basic patterns of inheritance that Mendel had presented in his original 1865 paper on peas. Beginning in 1900, Mendelian inheritance was extended to other plants, to animals, and to humans.

Mendel stated that each visible trait is governed by a pair of "factors" (later called genes). One member of each gene pair is inherited from the mother and one from the father.

See the issue here.
Back in the early 20th century, the focus was of genes passed on by parents. The solution then, considering there was no genetic therapy, was to focus on stopping or encouraging breeding of traits deemed bad/good. That is old, We can now focus on the actual genes in question

I would bet 3 dollars and a ham sandwich that if a test was available to new pregnancies that allowed a glimpse into, and altering of, the genetic makeup of the offspring to ensure physical and mental fitness, and removal of any undesirable traits (such as hereditary cancer and heart disease, MS, Parkinsons, etc) that 99 our of 100 would without question go through that. This is the very core of modern bio-eugenics.

As far as sterilization. Well, the concept back then was to stop the bad from reproducing. What defines bad though is the question. Back then it was a bit nonsense...criminals and the like. I put forth there are bad things you don't want reproducing, but those are not people, rather traits. The eugenics community of -today- agrees...people are fine, traits aren't.

Your task, if you choose to do so, is to now make a thread in full support of bio-eugenics (if you can). It is extremely easy to make a eugenics is bad thread..every other conspiracy theorist has done so. toss in some Nazi's, refer to the movie Gattica, and voila...you got the peasants grabbing pitchforks and torches. But when is easy fun. Your a clever chap, put forth some actual eugenics methods in production today and in the near future that will make people realize its not as scary as they considered.

reply to post by Phage


Phage,

I made a point of not contributing on ATS and I plan not to however your slightly weak post had me pull out my dusty keyboard and reply.

Tesla is one of my Hero's because he had a brilliant mind and was misunderstood, and because of his childlike innocence at times he was very much out of place in the world as were his views.

Tesla was a brilliant scientists, engineer and creative thinker. Jefferson was a ruthless business man (no different to modern scientific, commercial and financial figureheads of today), both contributed to society in different ways.

But to write a post and point out some flaws in his character and use this a basis to argue he was not at least brilliant and did not contribute to the world is a weak argument my friend.

He like many gifted people was flawed, most likely well within the Autistic spectrum, at least having Asperger traits, he was greatly misunderstood and he greatly misunderstood the rest of the world (believing naively that he could change the world and the world would be willing to accept change...or would be allowed to accept change).

Stifled Hero? No

Misunderstood Genius? Yes

We all have faults, it's what makes us human, if we look for fault in people we will find them however if we look for something good in everyone we will not only better our own spirits but also make a positive contribution to the people around us.

Peace and good health to you Phage.

Einstein's relativity work is a magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors. The theory is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king... its exponents are brilliant men but they are meta physicists rather than scientists.

(Nikola Tesla - New York Times (11 July 1935), p. 23, c.8)

reply to post by Bicent76

I think your taking that quote a lil to far, he was talking about the mentally ill. If that is even a quotation and not a 2nd hand quote etc.

The quote comes from an interview published in Liberty in February 1937. Here's another portion of it but I suggest you read the whole thing.

In past ages, the law governing the survival of the fittest roughly weeded out the less desirable strains. Then man's new sense of pity began to interfere with the ruthless workings of nature. As a result, we continue to keep alive and to breed the unfit.

www.pbs.org...
"Less desirable." That can cover a lot of ground.
"Unfit". According to whom?

Ask any doctor about reproduction in cases where hereditary genetic disorders can be passed down to the off spring and see what their scientific opinion will be..

I would think that the potential parent would be informed and allowed to make their own decision in the matter. I would think that the potential parent would not be sterilized against their will. If that were the case I think the doctor should be thrown in jail.

just a lil over the top.

I think that people go over the top with their idolization of Tesla.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Bicent76

 

I think your taking that quote a lil to far, he was talking about the mentally ill. If that is even a quotation and not a 2nd hand quote etc.

The quote comes from an interview published in Liberty in February 1937. Here's another portion of it but I suggest you read the whole thing.

In past ages, the law governing the survival of the fittest roughly weeded out the less desirable strains. Then man's new sense of pity began to interfere with the ruthless workings of nature. As a result, we continue to keep alive and to breed the unfit.

www.pbs.org...
"Less desirable." That can cover a lot of ground.
"Unfit". According to whom?

Ask any doctor about reproduction in cases where hereditary genetic disorders can be passed down to the off spring and see what their scientific opinion will be..

I would think that the potential parent would be informed and allowed to make their own decision in the matter. I would think that the potential parent would not be sterilized against their will. If that were the case I think the doctor should be thrown in jail.

just a lil over the top.

I think that people go over the top with their idolization of Tesla.

edit on 8/4/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

I guess Phage, I don't really wanna read much more about Tesla, nor debate about him, I kinda get his point thou, nature is what used to deem fit and unfit, and mankind's intervention. Forced sterilization, sounds a lil crazy.. maybe he was asked something like a what if question, I dunno nor do I really care.. I do not think reproducing genetic defects to children and offspring is intelligent thou either, so they can live in a hospital or be dependent on pharma all there life etc. So in a sense is that ethical? Anyhow I don't want a debate on this guy either. Yet you cannot tell me all people are responsible Phage..

reply to post by Phage


This thread is pretty ridiculous.

Just one source from PBS...and then a link to wikipedia which cites a single book on Tesla.

You attempt to discredit Tesla on the basis of eugenics as if he was the only one discussing this at the time and you also mention Nazi Germany even though they weren't the first to sterilize people. At the time eugenics was considered a serious academic subject.

Then you bizarrely mention him apparently firing a secretary because of her weight and then telling someone else to change their dress (again cited from the same book in the wikipedia article)....as if these two instances somehow destroy his entire character and credibility.

Many people on this site seem to hold you in high regard, but I fail to see why because in this thread you come across as a charlatan.

When people look at ancient civilizations like ancient Greece etc and the wonder how these civilizations came to an end, was it a plague, was it a natural disaster, war...actually what happens most of the time is that they start to breed with outsiders and the resulting children either have split interests or are unable to maintain the civilization in terms of standards so it falls into a state of disorder and internal fighting. So yes Tesla is right in a way, you can actually kill a target country by pumping if full of peoples who don't share the same interests, ideals, goals, motivation, religion etc