7 ms·

It doesn't seem clear to me at all that this guy was JUST interested in supporting science. Epstein's intrest in eugenics is pretty well documented. I don't th

It doesn't seem clear to me at all that this guy was JUST interested in supporting science. Epstein's intrest in eugenics is pretty well documented. I don't think it's a stretch to think his special interest in funding an evolution research team at Harvard was directly related to his abhorrent views. Sure his funding probably has had some higher order positive effects but it seems incredibly silly to suggest that such a monsterous person was donating all this money becuase of his passion for science. His constant oversight suggests that he probably had an agenda and use in mind for the research and I find it incredibly hard to believe it was anything good/humanitarian. You also have to keep in mind this is not just a guy with bad views, this is a person who has wielded money and power to directly cause evil for a very long time.

nyolfen 6y ago
> Epstein's intrest in eugenics is pretty well documented. i don't think of myself as much of an epstein apologist, but as far as i can tell this traces back to him talking about wanting to have a bunch of children, which seems like a bit of a stretch to me
- super_scooper 6y ago
  I think the comment your referring to was a little less innocent than him wanting to just have a few kids. I did a fair bit of reading on this guy a while back and I seem to recall there being quite a bit of public documents and testimony that pointed out Epsteins weird interest in eugenetics.
  - nyolfen 6y ago
    could you point me to them?
beaunative 6y ago
There is no doubt that 'any' patron to science expect to see certain results, whether that someone or some organization's expectations matches ours is another matter. The difference should be drawn with fabricating results, not donation to science
xwdv 6y ago
There is nothing wrong with eugenics for Christ’s sake. People have such a knee jerk reaction to eugenics because of how it was used by Nazis, but before that the field had many noble goals. If we provide the ability for people to select partners with some precision about what genes they carry and what might be passed to their offspring, we can ultimately create a world with stronger, smarter and healthier humans, and perhaps eliminate some genetic diseases along the way. Humans basically already practice eugenics anyway because of social structures, it’s just very inefficient.
- bryanrasmussen 6y ago
  >If we provide the ability for people to select partners with some precision about what genes they carry and what might be passed to their offspring, this is what's potentially wrong with eugenics, in the abstract there is nothing wrong with being able to choose genetic traits, but it will be left to the prejudices and ill-informed opinions of people not to mention fashion. Many traits that do not have anything to do with smarter, healthier and stronger humans would be selected for or selected against skewing the population unnaturally. Would this have any deleterious effect - not sure. After all if it doesn't directly effect having smarter, healthier, or stronger humans what is the harm in - let's have an example - having red hair and freckles suddenly cut from the gene pool by 3/4ths? Probably no harm, maybe the redheads out there will be upset that there is sort of genetic vote to eliminate them, but they'll get over it or just get old and die so what's the harm? on edit: to clarify - verged into sarcasm with my ending example as obviously I do think it would be harmful, although I can't really show with any certainty that I am correct, and just as obviously don't know that my scenario would happen - if it did I expect it would not be because most people chose against having redheaded children but rather for having other types of characteristics.
  - s1artibartfast 6y ago
    Eugenics is tricky. It is a complex field with legitimate and valuable data that can be used to help people, but can also be used for harm. Nobody would wish cystic fibrosis, huntington's disease, or downs syndrome on their children, but that doesn't mean carriers don't deserve respect and dignity. The tricky part is how to promote healthier, happier, and smarter children without denigrating others.

nyolfen 6y ago

> Epstein's intrest in eugenics is pretty well documented. i don't think of myself as much of an epstein apologist, but as far as i can tell this traces back to him talking about wanting to have a bunch of children, which seems like a bit of a stretch to me

super_scooper 6y ago
I think the comment your referring to was a little less innocent than him wanting to just have a few kids. I did a fair bit of reading on this guy a while back and I seem to recall there being quite a bit of public documents and testimony that pointed out Epsteins weird interest in eugenetics.
- nyolfen 6y ago
  could you point me to them?

beaunative 6y ago

There is no doubt that 'any' patron to science expect to see certain results, whether that someone or some organization's expectations matches ours is another matter. The difference should be drawn with fabricating results, not donation to science

xwdv 6y ago

There is nothing wrong with eugenics for Christ’s sake. People have such a knee jerk reaction to eugenics because of how it was used by Nazis, but before that the field had many noble goals. If we provide the ability for people to select partners with some precision about what genes they carry and what might be passed to their offspring, we can ultimately create a world with stronger, smarter and healthier humans, and perhaps eliminate some genetic diseases along the way. Humans basically already practice eugenics anyway because of social structures, it’s just very inefficient.

bryanrasmussen 6y ago
>If we provide the ability for people to select partners with some precision about what genes they carry and what might be passed to their offspring, this is what's potentially wrong with eugenics, in the abstract there is nothing wrong with being able to choose genetic traits, but it will be left to the prejudices and ill-informed opinions of people not to mention fashion. Many traits that do not have anything to do with smarter, healthier and stronger humans would be selected for or selected against skewing the population unnaturally. Would this have any deleterious effect - not sure. After all if it doesn't directly effect having smarter, healthier, or stronger humans what is the harm in - let's have an example - having red hair and freckles suddenly cut from the gene pool by 3/4ths? Probably no harm, maybe the redheads out there will be upset that there is sort of genetic vote to eliminate them, but they'll get over it or just get old and die so what's the harm? on edit: to clarify - verged into sarcasm with my ending example as obviously I do think it would be harmful, although I can't really show with any certainty that I am correct, and just as obviously don't know that my scenario would happen - if it did I expect it would not be because most people chose against having redheaded children but rather for having other types of characteristics.
- s1artibartfast 6y ago
  Eugenics is tricky. It is a complex field with legitimate and valuable data that can be used to help people, but can also be used for harm. Nobody would wish cystic fibrosis, huntington's disease, or downs syndrome on their children, but that doesn't mean carriers don't deserve respect and dignity. The tricky part is how to promote healthier, happier, and smarter children without denigrating others.