In regards to a common question in the comments: "Why was Eugenics bad/bad science, a terrible idea, etc..." Here are responses from our writer and consultant. Thanks for being curious, y'all! :) Response 1: Super short version, there were a number of serious problems from the jump. For one, eugenics assumed that people are like plants or nonhuman animals: driven primarily by instinct, capable of only so much change in a lifetime-basically, products of “nature,” not “nurture,” as we say in the episode. In fact, the opposite appears to be true about most traits. Most traits also appear to be multifactorial, meaning that, alas, there is not one gene for awesomeness, e.g., but a complex interaction among several regions of the genome, plus nurture. Basically, the eugenicists profoundly oversimplified human genetics. They worked before the modern synthesis, so they literally got the math wrong, but moreover, they reduced human nature to a small number of classical genes, which isn’t accurate. But probably the simplest way in which eugenics was bad science was that the core publications behind the discipline were riddled by *serious* basic errors, as I believe we point out re the Kallikak study and Davenport’s work on race. So, even if eugenics had been “right,” they screwed up or falsified their own research. *** Response 2: I want to be consistent with our assertion from the beginning that people in the past weren’t stupid, and that they were trying to make sense of the world around them. To be fair to the eugenics enthusiasts, we really shouldn’t judge their science based on our modern understanding of genetics because that would contradict the historic perspective that we’ve been trying to argue throughout the series. We also shouldn’t try to say it was bad science from our current moral perspective. However, we are perfectly within our right to say it was bad science based on early 20th century standard best practices of science, which it totally was. (Caveat that eugenics started with some scientists doing sorta legitimate investigations, but as it evolved into a social movement, there was significantly more dubious practitioners & applications of “science” (ie, not really science).) First point of bad science: In a rush to make genetics responsible for everything, there was a clear blurriness between causation and correlation. Eugenics proponents would want to look for traits (such as honest/depravity, frugalness/thrift) & look at family patterns. There might be a very clear hereditary correlation, but that in no way means that a gene is responsible for the trait. There was a jump to a conclusion that skipped the experimental elimination process that is key to the scientific method. Many of the traits that the eugenicists were investigating could actually be disproven through twin studies. Second point of bad science: Germ theory was finally accepted & genetics seemed to be the next frontier, so lots of people jumped on the bandwagon of redefining disease. Conditions like feeblemindedness were now categorized as diseases, which needed to be fixed or eliminated. A hundred years later, we are still discovering what conditions are caused by pathogens, heredity, environment, etc, and we are left with a whole lot of unknowns. Mostly, what we have learned is that it is a lot more complicated than anyone thought. Third point of bad science: Points 1 & 2 weren’t really tested in any kind of sciency way, ie with control groups, repeatable experiments, double blind parameters. Granted, lots of those ideas really solidify over the 20th century (partly in response to the bad science of eugenics), but there was enough of an ethos of best practices that definitely shows this wasn’t rigorous science. Eugenics did a lot of data collection & observation - on their own, good aspects of science - but then used that data to look for correlation patterns. Fourth point of bad science: Eugenicists began conflating poorly defined “scientific” causes, like feeblemindedness (re point 2), with social causes, like poverty or immigration or race, which created a seemingly scientific legitimacy for poorly argued ideas. This gets more at an ethics position that even the early legitimate scientists allowed dubious science to go mainstream.

@lincolnpepper816

5 жыл бұрын

oof

@borrr5416

5 жыл бұрын

Nice explanation, give this writer a higher ration of eternal gratitude and coffee

@Tfin

5 жыл бұрын

Still, at its very root, it was science before it was a movement, and the scientific errors cited don't alter that any more than the bad science done in other areas makes other things "not a science" They got a lot wrong, but that was before anyone had gotten it right. There are so many bad theories out there right now with the "if you think you understand it, you don't" of quantum physics, and the difference is that they don't work on humans. At the end of the day, it was about genetics, and people today just want to separate genetic manipulation from the movement. A movement that, for all the bad, for all the wrong, wanted to make humans better, even when the things they could fix weren't the things they looked at. The whole of it, unlike things like modern astrology, has not been dismissed, and we know there was SOME right in there, we've just changed the name.

@glennshanley3343

5 жыл бұрын

The writer does explain "Why was Eugenics bad/bad science" But not "Why is Eugenics a terrible idea" Improving what it is to be human by improving the basic human seed sounds like a good idea. That is genetic testing of embryos. Intelligence, like blood group, does have a genetic component. Dwarfism is being selected out of humanity. That seems like eugenics to me.

@michaelm8460

5 жыл бұрын

It's not eugenics in and of itself, but the ethics backgrounder it's pratice. Just watch what happens when CRISPER goes mainstream.

"Those who cannot finish their pasta are doomed to reheat it" George Santiantoni.

Eugenics is still the norm in zoology and agriculture. Most people only really consider it an ethics violation when applied to humans, and even then all breeding is selective in one way or another. Some people would say the line between ethical and unethical selective breeding is drawn on whether freedom is being factored in/out, but there's no such thing as absolute freedom- everything is influenced by external factors to some extent.

I wish I could understand these concepts, but I'm genetically predisposed to be dumb.

@evolutionrhythm4416

4 жыл бұрын

That's funny (-:. l'm only genetically developed enough to comprehend that "dumbness" is a anthropocentric concept that's usually reserved as a means to derogate other members of a group in order to elevate one's own status within that group. Of course people do dumb things. Though quite often those actions are being driven by a genetic disposition that was selected for during humanities environment of Evolutionary Adaptations ( the Pleistocene). E.g. Eating yourself into a early grave or participating in very dangerous behaviour because the genes had no foresight that what was rare in the past ( sugar, fat etc) would be so abundant in the present. ( in the past a male willing to risk life whilst hunting could explain why today a highly significant proportion of males ( within any population ) are attracted towards risk taking activity ( far more than the female average) .e.g. Driving fast on race bikes. And why a significant proportion of women are attracted to these dangerous males. Dumb? . Well, we could all be geniuses with hindsight of what consequences are actions course. But the proximate psychology of humans tends to skew a more reactionary behavior rather than a more nuanced reflectively self conscious cost/benefit behavoiur.

@cheesefries7436

4 жыл бұрын

At least you know.

@CC-hx8gj

4 жыл бұрын

I mean, you're half black...

@abrarfaiyaz6503

4 жыл бұрын

But how dumb? Are you a moron, an imbecile or an idiot?

@tamaracarter1836

4 жыл бұрын

How disgusting and racist some of you people are! Truly sad to see - especially the fact one of these (racist) comments has 27 likes.

This needed a lot more explicit descriptions of how the studies were flawed, since people are still falling into the same traps today.

@gingercat

5 жыл бұрын

I absolutely agree.

@ciaphascyne8866

5 жыл бұрын

i thought the same. they technically cover it right in the beginning with one broad stroke when he says something like "before people understood the science of genetics and heredity". a little breakdown on how modern science proves those ideas as incorrect and outdated might stray too far away from the 'history' theme and more into real science.

@brid101286

5 жыл бұрын

I propose a new scishow video on this topic!!

@LadCarmichael

5 жыл бұрын

Honestly I think it will probably be talked about when they get into Genetics, explaining it here would be more about talking about the latter than Eugenism in itself.

@VashdaCrash

5 жыл бұрын

There should be a lot of that in crash course statistics, though they don't specifically talk about this time in history.

hey Hank! i like how carefully you're tackling this topic. though, just for your assurance, its ok to call people disabled and not just different. of course eugenics targeted a lot of things that weren't disabilities, so the "different" descriptor is still relevant, but you can indeed call disabilities what they are too. using the word disabled is a good thing, i think, because avoiding the word means we think disability is bad when it isn't. i know that's not your intention at all, and you're trying your best to be respectful and as someone with disabilities, i appreciate it a lot.

@thewrathematician1911

4 жыл бұрын

Being disabled is inherently bad. It's a disadvantaged state based on the inability to function normally. Maybe in extenuating circumstances there could be a scenario were someone disabled would be better off in the moment but these are exceptions that prove the rule.

@tinycatfriend

4 жыл бұрын

@@thewrathematician1911 i am disabled, just so you understand my perspective. of course disability isn't something to strive for, and leaves people at a disadvantage in society. what i meant with this comment was that avoiding the word disabled contributes to the stigma surrounding it. calling disabled people "just different" can lead people to avoid talking about the negative aspects of it. for example, not providing accommodations to a disabled person who would benefit from them greatly because "they're not DISABLED, they're just different! they don't need help, they can do anything they set their minds to (without our support)!" this may sound like a silly situation to you, but it's sadly common for us.

Where did Galton came up with Eugenics? me: 4Chan?

@michaelmaitland3765

5 жыл бұрын

The Greek/Roman/Egyptian/Babylonian/Satanic Nazi Empire.

@korppi164

4 жыл бұрын

@Jordan Moir What do you mean by better? Do you mean more talented? Or more deserving of wellbeing?

@reubenmarchant2229

4 жыл бұрын

He only named it. It has been around in one form or another for a long time. Look at royalty. Oh! the horror of marrying outside the given few, LOL.

@curtiscarpenter9881

4 жыл бұрын

He came up with it in Britain he was born in Birmingham and died in Surrey, look it up on Wikipedia.

@aaronstinson9479

4 жыл бұрын

"Did came" oops

I am amazed with Dalton's nature versus nurture. And quietly shookt by the fact that these were new theories, i imagined it to be more earlier.

Don't Forget To Be Eminent

@Dayglodaydreams

5 жыл бұрын

Intelligence+Hard Work+Creativity=Eminence....................(Quite Transcendent!)

@palebluedot7435

5 жыл бұрын

@@somedude3448 hard work ? Lol I doubt it I can train a dog to work hard I can also train a dog to never move out of his bed

@palebluedot7435

5 жыл бұрын

@@somedude3448 creativity source Intellegence. Maybe but define 50%

*Zoologists yesterday:* Yo, limiting the gene pool is a good thing! *Zoologists today:* Yeah, about that...

@evilotto9200

5 жыл бұрын

*Zoologist tomorrow:* It's called Gene-Editing. Whoot, designer-babies!

@docterfantazmo

5 жыл бұрын

@@evilotto9200 I want my kid to have 6 arms and a T.Rex head!

@qbslug

5 жыл бұрын

doctorfantazmo + It depends. A big gene pool is only good when the environment is changing drastically and adaption is needed quickly. Otherwise a big gene pool means a species is not yet well adapted to a particular environment

@chemp231

5 жыл бұрын

@@qbslug only one problem with your small diversity idea. The world is in a constant state of change naturally, meaning there is always atleast one group with diversity and it opens up other groups more. Its the never ending cycle, like most other things in nature. The species adapts but so does the environment, and it could be counter active to the species.

@judewakefield7213

5 жыл бұрын

docterfantazmo I want my kid to have six heads and T. rex arms.

Dalton studied the human differences which he differentiate nature and nurture, and traits and behaviours of human from the heredity of their parents. His studies has big contribution in the field of science, especially in the field of psychology for it become a theory to some psychologists. Also some countries are still using his theories in making a law.

What a thorough explanation! Thank you for this video

Thank you very much. You have given a very deep history on eugenics.

Thank you for a really important episode in this series. Science is conducted by humans, and it messes up, sometimes spectacularly. Thank you especially for at least mentioning the connection between American scientists and political institutions and the Nazis. As for eugenics being “bad science”, yes and for the reasons you outline on this thread (thank you for that), but it also was respectable science, and carried the panache of coming from scientists (you mentioned Margaret Sanger capitalising on this respectability). It is a reminder that that the truth of science comes from scientific inquiry and methods, things that do not exclusively belong to scientists by any means, and not from the profession or standing of scientists, who are often wrong. Every time some one says “x percentage of scientists agree...”, or “science says... “, it simply misrepresents the true value of science.

@RhyminCarly

5 жыл бұрын

Thomas R. Jackson Such a good point! Thank you.

This will be dated eventually, but: Fracis -> Francis, Crash Course. ^_^

@crashcourse

5 жыл бұрын

Whoops! Thanks, fixed it :) - Nick J.

@JaimeNyx15

5 жыл бұрын

No problem!

Hank, with all respect, you take it for granted that people know why eugenics is bad science. But even if there are countless other videos out there explaining why, you still have to share compelling data here to complete the point. Otherwise, you convince no one who is sympathetic to the more cynical conclusions of that pseudoscience.

@michaeldove6603

5 жыл бұрын

yeah seems like the same mistake they made in the environmental determinism video. The idea behind Guns, Germs, and Steel has many flaws including cherry picking and ignoring alternative theories and eugenics has many of the same problems, but they both have just enough consistency and actual science behind it that unless the flaws are pointed out many people will just accept them as "facts". I hope they'll do an actual in depth video about it

@nikolavideomaker

5 жыл бұрын

@@michaeldove6603 enviromental determinism is just a fact by now. Do not compare eugenics with that.

@minitrumpsaltminingltd4351

5 жыл бұрын

I prefer smart chicks. If a really dumb one get pregnant Im stuck with idiot kids. How is eugenics bad science again?

@recklessroges

5 жыл бұрын

It seems obvious to me that negative Eugenics is bad for the individual, but I still see no clear explanation for why positive Eugenics won't improve the a species. I agree with OrchestrationOnline: there seems to be a presumption that Eugenics equates to bad. From the information presented it feels logically equivalent to, "because some tyrants liked mango ice-cream, mango ice-cream is evil."

@frankschneider6156

5 жыл бұрын

MiniTrump Saltmining LTD If it would be that simply, you would be right. The problem is, a) that intelligence is not only a hereditary fact, but to 30% influenced by environmental factors. But more important is b) that intelligence is a massive multigenic trait. Due to crossing-over and the recombination of DNA this means that a child has a completely new combination of factors. The IQ of a child is less determined by the single genes of the parents, but by their combination, which means that if you have smarter or dumber kids is to a large degree pure luck. An interesting side effect is, that kids of "very dumb" people tend to be smarter than their parents, and kids of "very smart" people tend to be "dumber" than their parents. Well for the hereditary part, not for the environmental part that is. Obviously will dumber adults be less able to raise intelligent children than smarter adults, but that's a matter of education not genes and that's why mandatory public schooling is so important. (Being home schooled by uneducated idiots is terrible idea). Thus we have a tendency towards mediocracy, which is why the average IQ is at 100 and stays at 100. Obviously is the idea behind eugenics not completely wrong and to a certain degree you could of course increase the average human IQ using targeted breeding programs, but that's something that most people deem unethical. It's that simple.

I watch these videos both for studying and for entertainment. They're even better than Ted talks even

Hey I think there was a man in 1940's from Germany who believed in eugenics also.

"Three generations of imbeciles are enough." - Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

@osmosisjones4912

4 жыл бұрын

Eugenics was Supported mostly by women . Feminist Margaret Sanger

That graphic at 4:25 reminds me of Orphan Black... which is fitting considering the themes and plot of that show is basically a comprehensive argument against social Darwinism

10:20 - Margaret Sanger was AGAINST abortion: “Although abortion may be resorted to in order to save the life of the mother, the practice of it merely for limitation of offspring is dangerous and vicious. I bring up the subject here only because some ill-informed persons have the notion that when we speak of birth control we include abortion as a method. We certainly do not. Abortion destroys the already fertilized ovum or the embryo; contraception, as I have carefully explained, prevents the fertilizing of the ovum by keeping the male cells away. Thus it prevents the beginning of life." - Margaret Sanger, "Birth Control Advances: A Reply to the Pope," 1931.

How amazing dalton studied the diferrences between the nature and nurture which we all related in our psychological behaviour. His observations that made discovery is a world wide concept regarding on us, which eventually lead us in understanding our psychology matter. Through him we could answer problems regarding on why this behaviour like this and so on. Dalton is such a brilliant man that made a remarkble discovery.

This is the first time that i've heard about eugenics. And i understand why it's not part of science anymore. Imagine not having the freedom of choosing the partner you're gonna be with for the rest of your life just to maintain the characteristics and qualities of genius people. I would literally move to another country if that's the case. Being smart or genius is not everything in this world. I'm actually curious if Galton had a wife and children and to what they think about Galton's eugenics. It did help us understand about human characteristics and even led to the making of IQ tests, but the idea of controlling people who to mate for scientific purposes is a no-no.

@thetruthsetsyoufree1492

4 жыл бұрын

Being genius can be insane, but unfortunately this is the truth. Eugenics is against the dignity of human rights. Eugenicists wanted to make the world perfect, but then it can unavoidably lead to boredom.

DFTBE. *Don’t forget to be eminent.

Its funny future Gene editing techniques will basically make this whole thing obsolete

@TheMrsuperhesoyam1

4 жыл бұрын

It'll be eugenics on the new level

@drmosaddegh

4 жыл бұрын

i wish those things existed before i was born :(

Thanks, I really needed this summary for my history class.

Finally! Ty for this video!

Thank you for this video, it has helped me so much

The Good/bad Eugenics idea is exactly like the movie Idiocracy

@jabbersart6218

4 жыл бұрын

@Andy w i think OP meant (or hope he meant) that if we continue to ignore the theory of natural selection to just "be nice" we're ultimately going to end up like idiocracy

The Green brothers are a gift to humankind! Thank you for dedicating your lives to helping educate others. I love you both and I was so excited after watching Hank for over a decade, to discover this awesomeness runs in the family and his brother, John, was there to refresh my paltry history knowledge. You guys rock!!!

We should really call it Social Galtonism as opposed to Social Darwinism

@fionafiona1146

5 жыл бұрын

Social Davinism was coined before Galton had made a name for him self😊

@Creativethinker12

5 жыл бұрын

Mister Bubbles The ideas of social Darwinism came from a guy called Herbert Spencer.

@evolutionrhythm4416

4 жыл бұрын

I agree. It's like if a scientist called Miss Dr Swallow was personally one of the few whom discovered that atoms existed. Then years later the sociopolitical narsistic tribal culture/government she lived in developed a nuclear bomb ( competing against another immoral government) and " honoured" her for helping to achieve it. I.e. Miss Swallow can not be held personally unaccountable for how a culture users the tools developed due to scientifc discovery. That's the majorities shared responsibility. Or in some nations today a minority authoritarian government that is far more immoral than what the country would be under a healthy democracy. And that's backed up by genetic research. I.e. If a morally corrupt minority create a social environment of fear this can contribute towards what l like to term, environmentally induced phenotypical states of fascists. Not the kind of places to take the kids on holdays . In fact the kind of places where the adults like to create hell for their beloved little ones.

@Mcfirefly2

4 жыл бұрын

How about Social Darwin-Galtonism? Or Social Galton-Darwinism? Or Social Galtonian Darwinism? Seeing that Darwin said the _'unfavored'_ races were doomed to disappear, it ought to be connected to him. Right? Since Darwinism is the rationale for it, and probably the reason that Darwin _must_ "rule", and the animus behind the intolerance shown to all who question it.

@andyisdead

4 жыл бұрын

Spencerism

The best teaching program Thanks for making this a thing😁😁😁

The pattern of seeing different races and ethnicities like machines is still very much alive

We need Eugenics. why? Because I was born.

@osmosisjones4912

4 жыл бұрын

Of course men ..and supported mostly by white women. . It makes with female choice

@drmosaddegh

4 жыл бұрын

Osmosis Jones huh?

Actually, I am amazed on how Galton studied this kind of science. Indeed, it is really hard to study this one. It stated that he is more interested of the human ability as a hereditary from parents. He really contributed a lot in the field of science and even in psychology, right? So, as he is known as a father of eugenetics. Still, it makes sense on how he deffirentiate nature from nurture. And for him, it has a big possibility that it will produce a good or smart one between a two smart persons to be paired. Si, it makes sense to me becasue it will turn into a good ones from doing good...

Thank you very much for elaborating. I think this was a very good explanation of the scientific flaws of eugenics, and since science is the subject of this video, that is sufficient. However, I do think that it’s important for everyone watching and commenting on this video to consider more than just the scientific flaws of the eugenics movement. Even if there had been a way to accurately discern that certain patients of sanitariums were “feebleminded,” and would invariably pass on their “feeblemindedness” to their progeny, it would still have been wrong to sterilize them against their will. And that is what the Buck v. Bell decision allowed to be done to thousands of people. I also think it is wrong to pressure a person to reproduce, or to not reproduce, out of fear for the gene pool. A human being is a human being, regardless of intelligence, abilities, illnesses, race, gender, or any other thing. Every human being has a right to exist, even if they seem like a burden to the closed-minded. The eugenics movement had, and continues to have, far-reaching consequences. Consider Puerto Rico, for example; fearing overpopulation, many were encouraged to undergo sterilization. Later, encouragement turned to coercion; some hospitals reportedly refused to deliver a woman’s third child unless she first consented to the sterilization procedure. Today, we encourage the poor to have fewer children. But are our motives purely altruistic, or would we simply prefer to decrease their population, rather than helping them? There are many more examples of modern eugenics. We should be aware of these things, because, like it or not, we will have to decide for ourselves what we think about them someday, and I have a feeling it won’t be easy. I mean, eugenics was widely accepted in the early 1900s, even though we scoff at it now. What are we accepting now that will disgust the future generations?

@leobat7007

5 жыл бұрын

Why would it be wrong to sterilize people against their will, or to encourage them to either do so or to have less children?

@RhyminCarly

4 жыл бұрын

@@leobat7007 Hello, sorry to respond a whole year later, but I wanted to answer your question now that I've seen it. There are many reasons why this is wrong, the first being that we believe a person has a right to liberty, and allowing unwanted medical procedures that leave a person sterile are certainly not within the realms of liberty. The first question we have to ask about sterilizing people against their will is, what would "qualify" someone for this unwanted procedure? Would it be only people who do not have the mental capacity to care for another person? Sterilization is permanent, so it would have to be someone who has no hope of ever gaining the capacity to care for a child. The only reason I can think of would be in cases of severe mental disability, in which the person is unable to care for themselves at all. If this were the case, then that person likely could not give consent to sex in the first place. So the problem should not be "how do we make sure this person does not reproduce?" -- It should be "how do we protect this person from sexual abuse?" Other than cases of a person being unable to make the decision for themselves, I cannot think of a situation that would justify permanently taking away a person's freedom to choose whether to have a family. What is the use of having a genetically "superior" human race, if the people born into that race are not free? In addition to all of that, there is one more question we should be asking ourselves. Who are we to decide who has the right to live? That is essentially what we are doing, by interfering with people's ability to reproduce: we are deciding, based solely on the parents' genes, who is worthy of existing. We can't make a decision like that without taking away the value of a human life. Unless we want to say that the disabled are unworthy of life, we cannot decide whether someone should be allowed to reproduce. Anyway, I hope this answers your question, or at least gives something to think about. I'd love to discuss further if you have anything else to say.

Considering the Nerdfighteria slogan is "Don't forget to be awesome," my mind has been blown.

Really good!

I still believe that judging people by merit is a good idea: for example, I think that the best people should get the best jobs, rather than have them awarded by gender, or the color of their skin.

@daonap

4 жыл бұрын

It's a bad idea, unless you quantify merit and find an objective way of assessing who's better and who's worse. In the best case scenario, we're a long way from these feats. I suspect we cannot reach judgements based on a purely objective evaluation of people's merits, because merits are relative to values, and they do not exist in vacuum - they are socially and culturally constructed.

@zell863

4 жыл бұрын

It is still happening at free market in capitalism. Only government jobs get useless idiots.

@emf49

4 жыл бұрын

The most qualified individual should get the job. That should always be the criteria. Who wants a cardiac surgeon who has been hired just because he/she is a minority?

LADY FOPPINGTON: (pops out of the doorway with harpsichord music) "But what about the SKULLS?!!" HANK: We're already past that! FOPPINGTON: Oh... (sadly fades out of the room)

Hey, it would be awesome if you could post the titles/links of the books referenced in the videos.

For humans in the modern industrial world, the money (and how the family uses that money) you're born into is the biggest factor over genetics or anything else. It's possible but hard to move up the ladder - it's real easy to go down.

And soon will crisper rule

I would suggest an alternate title of this episode of "How bad science can change the world."

Francis Galton was the man coined Eugenics. Galton was interested in the question of whether human ability was hereditary. Then he come up with the idea that a smart man should marry smart woman, Galton promotes the union of two smart/ people who were functioning as a productive human to produce offsprings who were would likely to be smart in the future. But this idea could be discriminating for those people who have unlikeable traits such as ethnicity, IQ and Physical appearance etc. Actually, I am partially agree with Mr. Galton, people should find a long time partner who share the same personality and characteristics, they tend to last longer and more happier. He also coined the phrase "nature vs nurture" wherein he studied a particular twins if they were still the same if they were in different environment. And it was pretty amazing and weird, Psychology is awesome.. Btw Galton also always linked to the discovery of Fingerprint. Which is very helpful today. Indeed he was a Great man, the same with his relative Darwin. A family of geniuses.

Galton himself sounds pretty scientifically minded, but as usual, thing gone bad when the idea leaks into the public

@RhyminCarly

5 жыл бұрын

oldcowbb so true. I also find that the most intelligent among us, when they do make mistakes, tend to make them on a very large scale. Much the same way the fastest cars cause the deadliest accidents.

Juuuuuust a couple of sound foams would make a huge difference here.

there is subtitles timing problem in this video and some other videos before ı wached in this series .subtitles coming too late my be 10 secont later he talked. exept this they are very nice thanks to everyone who made these videos

I generally don't agree with eugenics because of the ethics of it. However, I would probably be ok with editing out the genes that cause debilitating, lifelong disabilities as they can affect a person's quality of life.

@Khemix4

4 жыл бұрын

Hypothetical question... say there is a woman who keeps churning out kids, who she can't possibly take care of. Her many kids grow up in poor circumstances and go to your kids school, where they get involved in drugs and gangs as a result, and possibly drag your own kids into it and disrupting their education. Lastly, her kids depend on the state to take care of them in treating their addictions and subsidized housing further robbing you of your tax dollars. Yet the mother continues to irresponsibly have kids, with different fathers many of whom have criminal records. It's her life, her choice, but her kids are affected, which in turn affects you and your neighbors. What do you do?

@Khemix4

4 жыл бұрын

@Christopher Stanley What if she is against contraceptives for religious reasons or doesn't tolerate them or is simply irresponsible and doesn't take them consistently? I'm not for forced sterilization, but forced subsidization isn't that good either.

@Sadin15

4 жыл бұрын

that's a different debate

@emf49

4 жыл бұрын

I'm okay with that also but the problem is that scientists always seem to take things to the next level - such as creating "designer babies". I'm quite sure there are all sorts of evils going on in labs today. It is in the nature of humankind to want to 'push the envelope'. Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde is an excellent example of that!

Can’t wait for crash course eugenics it’s gonna be lit

"evidence...of eminence...in their descendants" i bet that took some time to rehearse lol. Hank is eloquent as always.

@ResilientBiscuit

5 жыл бұрын

He can’t pronounce “experiment” though ...

Galton like Shakespeare's …obsessed with twins😮

THNK YOU

Seems like this man offered a great deal to the progress of science during his life, even if some of his ideas are debatable. Advancing fingerprinting, designing various tests, IQ, statistical analysis, social science, psychology, the idea of nature vs nurture, etc. Thanks Crash Course, I'll read up a little more on Francis Galton.

How about we limit eugenics to Crusader Kings 2, it seems to work just fine there

That was brought together REALLY well and now I think I know why Mengele had an obsession with twins... Mind=blown

@deviousxen

5 жыл бұрын

Oh my goodness my bones went cold.

WHAT A AMAZING INFORMATION THAK YOU VERY MUCH SIR

Every time I see either of the Green brothers my day is immediately made better :)

@crashcourse

5 жыл бұрын

Same :D - Nick J.

I see that we're getting closer and closer to the modern era, so i thought I'd leave a comment I've been thinking about since episode 14. I hope that you do an episode on Scientific Skepticism. This is not being skeptical of science; quite the opposite. It's rather complicated to really describe, but the basic tenants are these: 1. Accept methodological naturalism, the idea that there is nothing that happens in the universe that is not the result of matter, energy, and natural processes interacting (this is the foundation is science as whole, since supernatural occurrences are either natural by definition or defy explanation) 2. No knowledge however derived is absolute, but knowledge may be established to the point where denying it is unreasonable. 3. Logic founded on clear and correct premises without flaws always leads to a correct answer (this is the hardest bit in my opinion). 4.. One must always be open to new information and the possibility that one is incorrect. 5. Embrace what Dr. Stephen Novella calls "neuropsychological humilty" which in short is the notion that your reality is an imperfect construction made by your brain based on streamlined data, heuristics, patterns from your past, and a very fallible memory. I highly recommend the new book The Skeptic's Guide to the Universe (yes a Douglas Adams reference, the authors are all huge nerds), which is a great primer.

Funny how this video conveniently omitted the moden name of Margaret Sangers organization: Plannned Parenthood and how eugenics was a hallmark of the progressive movement.

I love how certain people HAVE to know everything and HAVE to have stats and perfect people... Control at it's finest ❤️❤️❤️

00:24 02:52 03:51 05:39 08:27 08:32 09:19

Who loves CrashCourse? :)

@crashcourse

5 жыл бұрын

ME! But, I'm biased ;) - Nick J.

@Senor0Droolcup

5 жыл бұрын

We love crash course!

@Zeldarw104

5 жыл бұрын

ME- LOVE- crash-course long time!☺

@jlw35cudvm

5 жыл бұрын

I always look forward to it

@mohamedal-ganzoury3699

5 жыл бұрын

Who the hell doesn't?

I know that eugenics is bad and unethical and that it has caused many horrible episodes in history but I would like to know the scientific reasoning of why it is incorrect. I don't consider myself as exceptionally smart plus I am nearsighted, so I have always wondered if it was a good idea for me to reproduce since the competition over jobs due to automation is probably going to get tougher and tougher and if my offspring isn't smart or creative enough she/he wouldn't be able to survive🤔

Francis Galton founded both behavioral science and eugenics...interesting!

The problem with eugenics is subtly described in its very discussion. The question that develops is binary: (a) what is “better” and, (b) who will then decide what is “better.” Once we arrive at those answers, they invoke some deeply disturbing follow up questions. In the world in which we currently live the answer to the primary questions are as follows: (a) those who have the most and therefore reap the “rewards” of possessing the most money in a money-scheme based economic order, and (b) those who have the most, and have therefore reaped the power of having the most money in a money-scheme based economic order. For those of us in the great, unwashed masses the myriad of disturbing follow up questions are up to the individual imagination. Beyond that, and as a pragmatic matter for those who will make the determination of who will live and who will die, who will be allowed to breed and who will not (e.g. the wealthy and powerful who are going to be deciding how the human species should be bred to most resemble their “success”) a troubling question also arises: how will they remain so wealthy and powerful as it is the blind consumerism of those they wish to cull that creates their wealth in the money-scheme economy, and those same lives that are used to create the labor that produces the goods and services that are sold. Plus, if we are gone, who’s going to clean their toilets and lanscape their mansions? But what could possibly go wrong, it’s science, amirite!!!

@EvansRowan123

5 жыл бұрын

"Hurr durr genetics isn't real there is only class struggle"

@phaedrussmith1949

5 жыл бұрын

"Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires." John Steinbeck A new version of this quote would need to be filtered through the forced inculcation of the new neo-liberal standard of economic thought which rules the day, and therefore explain that the poor have simply accepted their lot in life, shamed into agreement by noting that they must simply be lazy, dumb or make poor decisions, otherwise they, too, would be among the money-rich elite. That’s why they have the billions and billions of dollars representing the labor of the people and we don’t, amirite again!! It’s the Divine Right of Kings. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

Welcome to Cost Co I love you

*cough* "the great replacement" *cough*

@davidcopperfield2278

4 жыл бұрын

stop coughing ! speak clearly

Thomas Jefferson mentions applying eugenics practices on his slaves in his book 'Notes on Virginia', making eugenics parts of this countries founding principles.

I don't think it's a terrible idea

They did it in Puerto rico too in the 70s

I would love "A Whole Creepy Spinoff Show" albeit, it might make me sickly...like watching that one movie "The Forest of Love"..o' my gosh that one was too much for me.

Resilience vs Adverse Childhood Experiences or nature *and* nurture

Glad to see Crash Course cover Margaret Sanger, but you left out a key fact. Her American Birth Control League later changed its name; it is now Planned Parenthood. Every year, Planned Parenthood gives out an award in her honor.

@secularprolife

5 жыл бұрын

Way to demonstrate my point, bro.

@michaelm8460

5 жыл бұрын

I'm not sure why PP wants Sanger to be considered their founder. She was just one person on the ABL board and there were several similar organizations in NYC at the time. She left after 9 years and the ABL merged with some of the other organizations. It was more than 30 yrs after her departure that the organization that started as the ABL was renamed Planned Parenthood. There must have been many others in that time that contributed as much as she had for the organization to thrive all these years.

@vincentknws

5 жыл бұрын

@@utvara1 I guess it's a good thing that the black population is being killed off in america according to you.

@utvara1

5 жыл бұрын

@@vincentknws I did not mention any race only impulsive ghetto dwellers... you interpreted that as black. Now if I was a leftard I would call that racist but I guess its just pattern recognition based on some personal and anecdotal evidence.

@vincentknws

5 жыл бұрын

@@utvara1 you reffered to the ghetto. Which is mainly black. Also you're supporting planned parenthood, which does kill off the majority of the black population, it's also kills off more females than males. Which was my point, not exactly your comment.

Shoutout to Cumbrian Wrestling, Yeah!

This sounds like the ideas that lead to the split of the triplets in 'Three identical Strangers' and many other unfortunate twins that were seperated at infancy by adoption agencies.

What a difference there is between historical crash course science and mr. ‘not funny jokes’ from the American history videos.

You and Ben Shapiro should have a 'speed talking contest'!! 😉

I wonder if Galton's work is what inspired the atrocities by Mengele during the 40s.

So.......are the birth of Psychology with William James and Willhelm Wundt coming next?

Positive eugenics actually has a point. It makes good sense to have intelligent people being encouraged to have more kids than those who aren't. This could be done legally or culturally, and it's much more humane than restricting less intelligent people from procreation.

@RhyminCarly

5 жыл бұрын

Nikhil Krishnan How would we go about encouraging people, legally or culturally?

@domenicocoviello446

5 жыл бұрын

Culture depend on behaviuor. And behavour is genetic and almost totally indipendent from intelligence. Double mass embryo selection first generation and then things go alone.

Isn't mate selection a naturally eugenic process? "This person's face is asymmetrical, I think I'll pass."? Sperm banks have height requirements. Whether they should or not isn't a matter of science, but ethics.

Though you tiptoe around the connection between Darwinism and the evil that followed, your research is useful.

How did Margaret Sanger influence Wonder Woman? Also when was the most recent forced sterilization in the state of California?

Should have mentioned Sanger started Planned Parenthood.

How cool is this channel

You missed the most important point: even if eugenics _was_ good science, it would still be bad ethics.

@RhyminCarly

5 жыл бұрын

Adamantium9001 hear hear!

@jjtimmins1203

5 жыл бұрын

It doesn't have to be. We could just pay people cash to be temporarily sterilized with IUDs for example. It would void abortions and accidental pregos.

@kervensjasmin1508

4 жыл бұрын

@@jjtimmins1203 bad ethics

@ricplay7890

4 жыл бұрын

Well said

@b_f_d_d

4 жыл бұрын

That's true

🔥🔥🔥I love you videos😂🤣😂🤣

this outfit is a literal fever dream

So this guy pioneered like most of psychology studying and even the most used forensics technique, but is remembered for eugenics :(

Thanks for the video, you talk so fast though, it's hard to keep up wow

I'll bet 10 bucks that Francis Galton is Lady Foppington's great, great grandfather.

@recklessroges

5 жыл бұрын

(ISWYDT) I think she is his 3rd cousin once removed *and* his aunt.

@rebekahcastro5430

5 жыл бұрын

Idk they might have been contemporaries haha

i subbed and liked so should you!

i would just like to point out that the beakers need filling ... pps i love your content keep up the good work smooches mmd

Eugenics never went away just changed its name 😂😂😂

Sager's sister portrayed the Wicked Witch of the West

Did Galton have any influence from phrenology by any chance?

That's a nice shirt.

This is why the Darwin Awards needs to be renamed the Galton Awards. Darwin was not down with that attitude, because he thought every human being had inherent, intangible value, even if they did a dumb thing once, or even all the time, but Galton was all for it.

To say that there is no scientific merit behind the idea that it could be possible to breed out, at least some, undesirable traits & promote desirable traits in humans through selective breeding is nothing short of denial. Just because there are ethical questions as to who decides what is desirable does not make the theory non-science. It sometimes amazes me just how close minded the scientific community can be.