The year 2100 will see eugenics universally established.
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.
The only method compatible with our notions of civilization and the race is to prevent the breeding of the unfit by sterilization and the deliberate guidance of the mating instinct.
Several European countries and a number of states of the American Union sterilize the criminal and the insane. This is not sufficient. The trend of opinion among eugenists is that we must make marriage more difficult. Certainly no one who is not a desirable parent should be permitted to produce progeny. A century from now it will no more occur to a normal person to mate with a person eugenically unfit than to marry a habitual criminal.
by SAMU0L0
22 Comments
Just in case.
The year 2100 will see eugenics universally established.
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.
The only method compatible with our notions of civilization and the race is to prevent the breeding of the unfit by sterilization and the deliberate guidance of the mating instinct.
Several European countries and a number of states of the American Union sterilize the criminal and the insane. This is not sufficient. The trend of opinion among eugenists is that we must make marriage more difficult. Certainly no one who is not a desirable parent should be permitted to produce progeny. A century from now it will no more occur to a normal person to mate with a person eugenically unfit than to marry a habitual criminal.
[https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/nikola-tesla-the-eugenicist-eliminating-undesirables-by-2100-130299355/](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/nikola-tesla-the-eugenicist-eliminating-undesirables-by-2100-130299355/)
Yea, bro was a psychopath đź’€
I am pretty sure he would try to make tech that make brave new world book a reality if he ever read it
People on reddit like to claim that eugenics was supported by most people back then. This isn’t true at all, it was always incredibly controversial.
The thing is that it was advocated mostly for by the kinds of people back then that a lot of redditors like to think themselves as. So reddit has come up with the idea that it was more universally accepted then it actually was. That way they can justify how all their idols of “intellectualism” kept advocating for eugenics.
> I hold it clear, therefore, if anything is clear about the business, that the Eugenists do not merely mean that the mass of common men should settle each other’s marriages between them; the question remains, therefore, whom they do instinctively trust when they say that this or that ought to be done. What is this flying and evanescent authority that vanishes wherever we seek to fix it? Who is the man who is the lost subject that governs the Eugenist’s verb? In a large number of cases I think we can simply say that the individual Eugenist means himself, and nobody else. Indeed one Eugenist, Mr. A.H. Huth, actually had a sense of humour, and admitted this. He thinks a great deal of good could be done with a surgical knife, if we would only turn him loose with one. And this may be true. A great deal of good could be done with a loaded revolver, in the hands of a judicious student of human nature. But it is imperative that the Eugenist should perceive that on that principle we can never get beyond a perfect balance of different sympathies and antipathies. I mean that I should differ from Dr. Saleeby or Dr. Karl Pearson not only in a vast majority of individual cases, but in a vast majority of cases in which they would be bound to admit that such a difference was natural and reasonable. The chief victim of these famous doctors would be a yet more famous doctor: that eminent though unpopular practitioner, Dr. Fell.
> To show that such rational and serious differences do exist, I will take one instance from that Bill which proposed to protect families and the public generally from the burden of feeble-minded persons. Now, even if I could share the Eugenic contempt for human rights, even if I could start gaily on the Eugenic campaign, I should not begin by removing feeble-minded persons. I have known as many families in as many classes as most men; and I cannot remember meeting any very monstrous human suffering arising out of the presence of such insufficient and negative types. There seem to be comparatively few of them; and those few by no means the worst burdens upon domestic happiness. I do not hear of them often; I do not hear of them doing much more harm than good; and in the few cases I know well they are not only regarded with human affection, but can be put to certain limited forms of human use. Even if I were a Eugenist, then I should not personally elect to waste my time locking up the feeble-minded. The people I should lock up would be the strong-minded. I have known hardly any cases of mere mental weakness making a family a failure; I have known eight or nine cases of violent and exaggerated force of character making a family a hell. If the strong-minded could be segregated it would quite certainly be better for their friends and families. And if there is really anything in heredity, it would be better for posterity too. For the kind of egoist I mean is a madman in a much more plausible sense than the mere harmless “deficient”; and to hand on the horrors of his anarchic and insatiable temperament is a much graver responsibility than to leave a mere inheritance of childishness. I would not arrest such tyrants, because I think that even moral tyranny in a few homes is better than a medical tyranny turning the state into a madhouse. I would not segregate them, because I respect a man’s free-will and his front-door and his right to be tried by his peers. But since free-will is believed by Eugenists no more than by Calvinists, since front-doors are respected by Eugenists no more than by house-breakers, and since the Habeas Corpus is about as sacred to Eugenists as it would be to King John, why do not they bring light and peace into so many human homes by removing a demoniac from each of them? Why do not the promoters of the Feeble-Minded Bill call at the many grand houses in town or country where such nightmares notoriously are? Why do they not knock at the door and take the bad squire away? Why do they not ring the bell and remove the dipsomaniac prize-fighter? I do not know; and there is only one reason I can think of, which must remain a matter of speculation. When I was at school, the kind of boy who liked teasing half-wits was not the sort that stood up to bullies.
Eugenics and Other Evils. 1922
G.K.Chesterton.
Remenver guy’s.Â
Never idealise peole from the past.Â
It is interesting that he himself probably would not qualify. Despite his genius he very clearly had some major screws loose. I think he fell in love with a pigeon at one point.
The interesting thing is that a lot of people support eugenics without even realizing it.
Eugenics is human intervention in genetic outcomes of reproduction. It’s when eugenics is forced that people are outraged (for good reason). But we have genetic tests now that can show a fetus will develop some debilitating genetic disease. If you were an expectant parent and you discovered your child was going to have a horrible illness, would you carry through?
While the word has a horrific past, parents who choose not to carry such a fetus to term are actually engaging in eugenics. The difference is that it’s voluntary.
He also really hated fat people, which I think would be relevant to the many people who worship him. He likely wouldn’t have liked you anyway, but…
Well a Serbians gotta…Serb!…?
based and serb-pilled
You can take the Serb out of Serbia, but never the Serbian out of the Serb
People say it’s ironic musk uses tesla’s name when he basically acts like eddison did. But maybe he’s looking up to tesla because they have the same views on eugenics
Like we all haven’t had a classmate/coworker that you think shouldn’t reproduce for the greater good…
It is always a soul-crushing thing to learn that a cool and otherwise decent person from the late-19th/early 20th century supported Eugenics.
I don’t think he’s far off if i’m honest.
I know this is a meme sub but still, i’ve been theorizing for a while that as the climate situation is completely getting out of control and worse every year future governments will have some difficult choices to make. This may involve what Tesla is saying here and people may not have a choice whether they accept it or not because of how overpopulated the world will be. I mean, future governments and scientists may deem it necessary. I do not want to be the scientist or politician that has to implement such policies.
Having a world where people with all kinds of diseases or way too strong fertility can have children uncontrollably is quickly going to become a unlivable world combined with the climate situation. It’s a unpopular opinion but scientists may slowly come to the same conclusion in the next few years. Look at several countries in the third world they’re so unlivable that people have no future there anymore. Having 10+ children is no longer sustainable anywhere.
Sterilized *and* unable to marry? I could understand one or the other but why both? Kinda like adding insult to injury
Another admired historical figure is revealed to have had horrible views. Whatever. Drop in the bucket at this point.
And those superior genes will come from…interbreeding humans and pigeons.
For his defense, back in the day, hereditary trait was THE big thing. So I won’t blame him to think « maybe we can help natural selection and improve people »
That would still be pretty violent. But if it bring new generations that suffer less, the present suffering would be justified by the future relief
Now of course we know it’s a bit more complex than just « weed out the bad genes bro ». But with the time knowledge and an utilitarian base of ethic, I can see how he ended up thinking that
Eugenics was very popular in scientific circles for some time
Technically and logically, if we did not have our current technology and did not saw possibility of ‘gene editing and molecular alteration in entire human-body scale within less than a century of time’; making most optimal genes’ carriers to breed with other optimal genes’ carriers with no limits while rest of us with less valuable or less desirable genes would breed as much as enough to continue civilization without more than 2 children per non-optimal genes’ carrier couple, this would’ve better than historical braindead eugenics that castrate people for no reason, resources on earth and on the solar system would be enough for trillions to quadrillions of people, even those with desire to procreate can make children as they wish regardless of their diseases or flaws, afterall even those with ‘bad’ genes can bring children that eclipses their ancestors in all aspects(lottery, but possible), that’s why castrating/banning breeding of people is like taking a scapel and cutting humanity’s throat for no reason but due to stupidity. But molecular alteration and gene editing is possible, so this is totally unnecessary. By the time 3rd or 4th or 5th generation of such optimized generations are born, we’d have gene/molecular editing/alteration possible in entire entire human body scale, so it is better to focus on technology than such stupid things. If entire humanity focuses on improving gene editing and molecular control/precision/alteration, we’d achieve this in 1-2 human generations(15~40 years at max), so which makes eugenics and other derivates(e.g. the one I made as example) to be completely irrelevant and meaningless. So, manipulation of destiny via technology is better than manipulation of destiny via darwinistic breeding
*are sterlized. Get in the box, OP.
Eugenics is one of those things which was a fashionable idea among the intelligentsia in the early 20th century, as many believed it was save resources and improve the human race.
It suddenly became very, *very* unfashionable in the 1940s.
The idea still exists, though, as do thousands of similar “utopian bureaucracy” ideas. They’re just phrased in more politically correct ways.