Nicola Tesla. Stifled Hero.

reply to post by Phage
That guy whom is still alive andhas a IQ of over 200, he also stated the same thing about, limiting who can breed. So maybe it is a logical conclusion.
I'm sure you know the guy I speak of, he was a bouncer at one time, was thread about him not to long ago on ATS.
But think about it they say mongrel dogs is some cases are the smartest, over pure breed? I'm not making a direct comparison of dogs and humans, only making note.
Maybe they are both wrong.

reply to post by Kram09

You attempt to discredit Tesla on the basis of eugenics

No. I acknowledge his accomplishments. I question idolizing him as a hero.

also mention Nazi Germany even though they weren't the first to sterilize people.

I didn't say they were and I mentioned the nazis in the context of "only doing what they thought was right".

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.

Actually, that part was meant to be tongue in cheek. I know that doesn't always work on this medium.

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.

Or maybe this thread has generated a lot of interesting discussion and thought. Isn't that what ATS is about?

reply to post by Phage


Ultimately, it can't be argued that a proper application of eugenics wouldn't benefit mankind. Certainly, it appears unfair on the surface - but when genetic disorders and diseases are introduced into the topic, attitudes might start to waiver. If it were given a more scientific application (rather than political, religious or racial), it might be more acceptable. What if it was possible to require genetically manipulated reproduction for those who had these conditions (to eliminate colorblindness, for example). It would then serve the same purpose without denying reproductive rights.

If science could allow you to reproduce without passing on genetic disorders, wouldn't that be preferable? I believe we're on the verge of this capability.

What gives eugenics a bad reputation is the application as it has been presented by those with the power to implement it. Wiping out a race, for instance, would be an unscientific application. Each race has produced noteworthy individuals at some point (some do it quite often), so a racial application might rob mankind of a great asset (Gandi, MLK, Sun Tsu, Ben Franklin, YOU)

We've seen the ranks of disabled, diseased and otherwise incapable individuals rise in recent history. Previously, these disorders would have been taken care of by natural selection - but modern medicine has ensured that these unfit specimens survive and multiply. We have denied nature her mechanism to make us stronger - and the noble goal of eugenics is to pick up that mechanism and put it back to use. Certainly, it's possible to do it right - but its application would need complete scientific control for us to see actual benefit. Political, religious or racial implementation would certainly be ignoble and corrupt - and I think that's the face of eugenics we see and know today.

From what I've read about Tesla, I believe that his application of eugenics might be more scientific that the current implementation.

reply to post by Phage

Why in this thread you care about all humanity, but in the "Ground Breaking...Anti-GMO" thread your posting is
pro-GMO Monsanto "shill" of the month?

So an uneducated Haiti farmer knows more than the great ATS member Phage?!!!

Correlate that...

reply to post by stutteringp0et

Ultimately, it can't be argued that a proper application of eugenics wouldn't benefit mankind.

Ultimately eugenics cannot be supported scientifically or morally.

What gives eugenics a bad reputation is the application as it has been presented by those with the power to implement it.

What gives eugenics a "bad reputation" is that is based on the idea that there are some who are unfit to reproduce and that there are those who have the ability to determine who those are. What gives eugenics a bad reputation it that it removes the potential parent from the decision.

Tell me, how do you think we arrive at being "perfect" humans? Do you know how evolution works? It "tries" new things. Hmmm. Maybe it would be eugenics which would hold us back from that bright shiny future of humanity.

We've seen the ranks of disabled, diseased and otherwise incapable individuals rise in recent history.

Really? You have statistics that show a rise in the percentage of those with congenital abnormalities? You have statistics that show more of them are "breeding"?

reply to post by Phage


Sorry, perhaps my comments are a little unfair.

But I disagree with what you're saying.

reply to post by Kram09

Thank you.

reply to post by Phage


I think you've missed my point. A scientific application might aid humanity in ridding ourselves of certain genetic traits. I provided colorblindness as an example, but there are many others. Deafness, hemophilia, Huntingtons disease, autism - the list goes on.

Ultimately eugenics cannot be supported scientifically or morally.

Natural Selection is a widely accepted theory.

What gives eugenics a "bad reputation" is that is based on the idea that there are some who are unfit to reproduce and that there are those who have the ability to determine who those are. What gives eugenics a bad reputation it that it removes the potential parent from the decision.

I never said that I favored an application that would deny anyone the ability to reproduce, I suggested that modern science might offer these affected people the opportunity to have a genetically assisted reproduction to eliminate the undesirable genetic trait.

Tell me, how do you think we arrive at being "perfect" humans? Do you know how evolution works? It "tries" new things.

And it makes mistakes as well. Modern medicine ensures that these mistakes aren't taken care of by natural selection - as I opined.

Really? You have statistics that show a rise in the percentage of those with congenital abnormalities? You have statistics that show more of them are "breeding"?

The fact that these genetic diseases and disorders persist is proof enough. Furthermore, the National Human Genome Research Insitute (genome.gov) states the following:

Research on the human genome has shown that although many commonly occurring diseases are usually caused by inheritance of mutations in multiple genes at once, such common diseases can also be caused by rare hereditary mutations in a single gene. In these cases, gene mutations that cause or strongly predispose a person to these diseases run in a family, and can significantly increase each family member's risk of developing the disease. One example is breast cancer, where inheritance of a mutated BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene confers significant risk of developing the disease. .

My suggestion is that a benevolent implementation of eugenics (genetic manipulation for reproductive purposes) would ultimately benefit mankind by picking up the natural selection tool that has been taken away from nature by modern medicine.

You have to remember that this was before the human rights abuses connected to eugenics and others have come to light, which really only happened during and after WW2. Also before oppressive regimes of nazism and communism, so there was more trust that government could execute eugenics programs without slippery slopes and abuses. And there was widespread optimism about man finally taking evolution into his own hands, eliminating genetic diseases and shortcomings that plagued humanity since time immemorial. We now know that this optimism was unwarranted and giving such power to governments may not be a good idea. But that is in hindsight.

Maybe 21st century will realise the dreams of 20th century eugenicists through genetic engineering, this time without the bad.


It is only after WW2 that right to unlimited reproduction was made into kind of a holy cow in western society, due to nazi taboo etc. It was not always that way, people of the past took a more pragmatic view of it, even if sometimes misguided. Or ask the Chinese what they think about their population control program, 76 % support it, them little Hitlers..

www.pewglobal.org...

reply to post by stutteringp0et

My suggestion is that a benevolent implementation of eugenics (genetic manipulation for reproductive purposes) would ultimately benefit mankind by picking up the natural selection tool that has been taken away from nature by modern medicine.

That is not eugenics. That would be genetic engineering.

I don't know if you're doing it intentionally but you are mixing two separate issues.

I am not really understanding where all this hatred of Tesla is coming from. Tesla created the Wardenclyffe tower after years of study in Colorado. The purpose of that tower was to use the earth as an energy conductor to give electricity to everyone on earth. Everyone no matter what. That was his vision. So taking some quote of one thing he wrote and making him to be a eugenicist is disingenuous at best.

Tesla was also an intellectual. The world is over populated. It was over populated back in his day. Having thoughts about that and where those thoughts lead or how to solve them does not make him a bad person. We have no idea what was in his head or what his true intentions were. All we have to go by is what he left behind. Technology that we still don't understand.

What I think is that as more and more people are rediscovering Tesla, and learning more and more about his technologies and what he wanted to do, free humanity from enslavement, we see more and more of this Tesla bashing.

If you all learn the real history you will learn it was Einstein who worked for the bankers and the controllers. Not Tesla.

reply to post by hateriarch

If you all learn the real history you will learn it was Einstein who worked for the bankers and the controllers. Not Tesla.

Was Einstein in favor of forced sterilization of those he considered unworthy of breeding? If he was does that change the worth of his work? No, but it may change opinions about him as a man. But I never did really look at Albert as a hero. A great scientist. Just as Tesla was a great inventor.

I haven't seen anyone in this thread say that Telsa did not make contributions to our world.

reply to post by Phage

Originally posted by PhageThat is not eugenics. That would be genetic engineering.

I don't know if you're doing it intentionally but you are mixing two separate issues.

I would consider genetic engineering to be adding something that wasn't there before - hair color, eye color.... enormous p....um... pink finger.

What I'm suggesting is that if an individual had the gene predisposing offspring to Huntington's disease, for example, that individual might be a candidate for an assisted reproduction that would eliminate that trait. Ultimately, that's the goal of eugenics - to eliminate undesirable traits. In the past, that meant preventing reproduction.

Modern science may soon be able to offer us the opportunity to eliminate the traits instead of the child.

Maybe my posts haven't been clear about my opinion. I am against eugenics in its current form (driven by political, religious or racial beliefs). Reproduction is not only a right, but an instruction given to us by god. If it were possible to implement eugenics in a manner that eliminated genetic disease without preventing reproduction - I would be all for it.

reply to post by stutteringp0et

Reproduction is not only a right, but an instruction given to us by god. If it were possible to implement eugenics in a manner that eliminated genetic disease without preventing reproduction - I would be all for it.

That's not eugenics.
But that road produces a whole 'nother set of moral questions.

what do phage & tesla have in common?

answers on a post card to @ATS blah blah blah

phage you can't answer this one it's for your fanbase

they both like playing with currents A nod to your hang gliding

jeez only a joke.

reply to post by stealthyaroura

Or maybe I can't answer it because your post is incoherent.

reply to post by Phage

Originally posted by Phage
That's not eugenics.

As I understand it, and as it's described in every writing I've found, eugenics is supposed to improve the population. More often than not, it's used to eliminate unwanted groups.

Wikipedia:

bio-social movement which advocates practices to improve the genetic composition of a population, usually a human population

I advocate improvement by elimination of genetic diseases in a scientific manner, as I described before, not politically, religiously, racially motivated or biased against anything other than genetic disease and disorder.

Phage you get some points for stirring the pot....and im sure im not the only one here who thinks thats all youre doing.


As several have pointed out the concept of directed mating and erradicating the less desirable traits of humans is one that has been shared by many...and in Tesla's time this was almost certainly en vogue among the rich, intellectuals, and academia in general, just as phrenology and other scientific tangents were.

Your question might as well be "should we idololize anyone who has or does espouse a view that could be considered repugnant by the current whimsical societal norms or standards?" for is that not the KIND of question youre asking, irrespective of this particular iteration and object of its focus?

if we go down this road to its ultimate destination we shall have no heroes at all....and its intellectually dishonest to even raise such a question unless of course your real objective is to smear the reputation of a man who hardly has a reputation at all thanks to the widespread blackout of information on him in the educational system.


major fail

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Kram09

 

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.

Or maybe this thread has generated a lot of interesting discussion and thought. Isn't that what ATS is about?

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

it's sure generated a lot of flags and stars...

"Where's Phage?"

idol worship indeed

but feel free to ignore me, as I am quite "Insane"

Originally posted by Phage

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"), his use of existing science did allow him to produce some ingenious inventions. It is true that our dependence upon electricity has much to do with his work.

But was Tesla really working for the good of all mankind? Maybe not. His writing seems to indicate something else.

...

Those European countries he was taking about were those like Nazi Germany. Our hero was a eugenicist, in favor of selecting who should should be allowed to have children and who should not. For him "mankind" was a limited set of humans.
...

Do we really want to idolize a eugenicist? Was Tesla really working for the common man? Who knows what the true target of this inventive genius was?

edit on 8/3/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

edit on 8/3/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Why the Fox News-esque approach, Phage?


I bet you KNOW that regarding eugenics Tesla couldn't care less about "conceptions of a "master race" or inherent superiority of one person over another", but simply held the belief, that 'human pity' screwed with nature's right to elect the fittest to breed (and thus man must help).

This bear little resemblance to the views held by Adolf Hitler. Really.

It seems to me to be pretty suggestive to liken Tesla's views to only those of Hitler and Nazi Germany when you might as well have likened them to those of Theodore Roosevelt and United States of America or Winston Churchill and Great Britannia. Or the Catholic Church for that matter. Or pretty much any western country and their thinkers.

Either you KNOW the above and deliberately misrepresents Tesla or you don't really know his views, yet judge him anyway.

Fair and balanced, right?


As for the so called wacky ether theory .. well, what, at the time, made it downright wacky? And more important, how does it matter in this context? What other then enabling you to grossly unjust paint him as a 'wacky racist' does it bring to the table?

He was a man ahead of his time, but in many ways he was also a man OF his time. Singling him out for in part sharing the zeitgeist is just poor taste.

Other than that, you're left with a man who doesn't like fat people and bad dressers, and that really doesn't take anything away from the notion that he was "really working for the good of all mankind" and "really working for the common man".


Does it?