Nicola Tesla. Stifled Hero.

1. Tesla did want notoriety. Why not?

2. Tesla wanted the fame of being the genius in the room. Why not?

3. Tesla had views that are not like many other people. So? The point is?

4. Tesla had emotional, psychological, and social problems. So do many people who still have to work every day and also have personal desires and dreams they wish to fulfill.

In the end Tesla far outweighed Edison because of his achievements. Edison was jealous man who was willing to electrocute an elephant in public, torturing and making it suffer until it died so that he could make a campaign appeal against Tesla on AC verses DC power plants. So we know that Edison was a cruel and abusive man against animals. And if a man will hurt animals who do them no harm, what might he be willing to do to humans as well. Tesla had thoughts but Edison had actions.

reply to post by Phage

Do you think Tesla may have been a savant but able to cope slightly better than the typical "rain man" stereotype?
we have aspergers,OCD,the photographic memory (EIDETIC actually more likely) was narcoleptic or though he may have only slept 2 hours a day he was reported to take many "power naps" what are your conclusions these claims?
no doubt he may have shown a keen interest in eugenics but this was the time when it was the latest hot topic of discussion and he may have shared this view with his fellow contemporaries.

Who else is there in his social circle of friends that shared this same view?
whats your view on "social culling" as pointed out if nature were to be allowed to take it's natural course
the survival of the fittest would only remain,no?
is this such a bad thing?

reply to post by Phage

Do you think Tesla may have been a savant but able to cope slightly better than the typical "rain man" stereotype?
we have aspergers,OCD,the photographic memory (EIDETIC actually more likely) was narcoleptic or though he may have only slept 2 hours a day he was reported to take many "power naps" what are your conclusions these claims?
no doubt he may have shown a keen interest in eugenics but this was the time when it was the latest hot topic of discussion and he may have shared this view with his fellow contemporaries.

Who else is there in his social circle of friends that shared this same view?
whats your view on "social culling" as pointed out if nature were to be allowed to take it's natural course
the survival of the fittest would only remain,no?
is this such a bad thing?

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by ItDepends

 

Yes. A man to be admired for his accomplishments.
Not a hero. Not to me anyway. His disregard for the most basic of human rights won't allow me to put him on that pedestal.
I don't think I'd invite him over for dinner but I'll use his motors.

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

Really it seems you are just jealous of Tesla yourself. you want to and try an dethrone him because you yourself are not famous for doing something great and of benefit to mankind.
I'm sure in the not to distant future I doubt they would call it a human right to fornicate to produce a moron or someone with a less than ideal intellect. At least 95 say. Dah!

I would rather idolize Tesla rather than the thieving trash who ripped him off. Thankfully, I had a good Jr. High teacher and she made it a point to explain to her students how Tesla's work was stolen and perverted by people like Thomas Edison. It was made very clear, early on, what was going on, who had the money, and just exactly who had the brains----AND who was evil.

Nikola Tesla is one of my hero's. It was a different time back then, so people thought all kinds of crazy things, or had some strange beliefs, but to try and demonize him for it is just another smear campaign to try and tarnish the genius. good try though

but to try and demonize him for it is just another smear campaign to try and tarnish the genius. good try though

no it will NEVER WORK. FACT!
and it's not even that good a try to de-throne an absolute genius.
seem's this thread has turned into a bit of a smear campaign against not only Tesla but phage too.
don't think he planned that
nothing against 'ol phage but this worship of one online superguru? It has got to stop.it's so boring.

christ!what do some of you people want? pictures? actual name & address? job title? sexual preference?
you would think none of you actually know who phage actually is in real life. of course it's against T&C to release
said information,sorry it's not worth my membership to give you the "fix you need"

I think it's obvious what's going on here. Phage is jealous. Because clearly, Tesla's was much bigger....









I'm referring to Intellect ... of course.

There are certainly some things about Tesla technology that have been overplayed by his "fans." The whole notion of pumping the air full of electricity to generate "free power" is an example. You can got to any local area where there are high-tension electrical lines, bring an unwired fluorescent bulb, and get ti to light up a little. Yeah, it's a kind of free power, but the amount of juice you have to pump into the air for a small effect is huge, and these days a lot of people think it causes cancer at worst, and at best psychological reactions including hearing voices and seeing hallucinations (ghosts).

I tend to think more than anything that Tesla was a fiddler who had a poor understanding of what he was doing from a mathematical/physics, and he was also a lousy businessman who failed to take basic precautions to avoid having his ideas ripped off in a very competitive market, leading to the notion that he was somehow "suppressed."

Nice thread Phage,

I'm not used to see threads from you only harsh critics, but then again why pointing out the weakness of this man?

It has some degree Nazism to it ? But we'll never know.
He probably knew Otto Skorzeny very well and shared his feelings with him?

I feel his talents are overblown TODAY.
People look back and WANTto believe he knew the source of life.

...i dont want to break in onto phage's thread

but it appears to me,
that the things Tesla stated, were in *complete accordance* with the goals of that Awareness,
which he got his Inventions from

- with other words,
it wasnt Tesla, who 'wanted to have a new type of human upon the world '
- but that Awareness

...in fact, Tesla stated very well the Goals of that same Awareness, he obtained his Inventions from.......

regards,

reply to post by Phage


Great Thread!!!!

I would like to point out some things

1. Many times we see social variances from the "Norm" in those we call genius. I personally think that is why so many venues of higher learning are filled with extreme liberals

2. Many such minds will postulate ideas that perhaps they are not committed to, but only "testing the waters" so to speak

3. A lot of social ideas "back then" were what we would call neolithic today

4. Also; it is not surprising to see how many posters here have attacked the OP and not the message. Shameful but not surprising

Thanks for this thread Phage

Originally posted by Phage

Really? "Undesirable parents" were rendered incapable of reproduction by evolution? Can you provide some evidence of this? Seems that if that were the case we wouldn't be having this discussion at all. Eugenicists think evolution isn't good enough. They want to help it along, based on their criteria.

What do you think of child protective services? "Society doesnt think nature is good enough, they feel they need to make laws and such"... What I meant with nature and evolution, is that undesirable parents who are not capable of taking care of themselves and their child have a greater chance of dieing, and their offspring dieing, so in this sense, evolution is a process of creating more 'yes contextually and relatively' desirable parents. But to go against that grain we would have to impose our own ideals and will on nature, which we do. So have you read articles regarding being able to choose and omit genes in babies and stuff?

Is there any doubt in your mind that this and more will occur in the nearer to near future?

That is a far cry from declaring that someone, anyone, based on some vague prejudice should decide who is "fit" to have children.




Child protective services. The law. And the nature of nature, if I am an ugly, deformed man I will have a harder time finding a mate to create offspring, by nature and by the numbers and objective study, I am an undesirable parent. Community and human goodwill and those sorts of things are the Yin to nature yang, we try to level the playing field by caring for handicap and sick. It is an interesting subject and topic, I know where you are coming from and agree. Everyone is a free individual with their own will, and they have the right to pursue a mate for a family. Yes that is the bottom line and the end of the story.

And about the far cry. In the future do you think eugenics with continue to evolve as a field, and have greater and greater potential influence on society and human life? In 50 years or so, (number doesnt matter, this will be an issue sometime in the future, somewhere in reality) when you can go to a hospital and scroll through files of babies or mix and match and customize qualities, that your 'Dna designer' can then make your baby. You want an athlete, blonde hair...etc. When this occurs, this is a more direct getting to the essence of evolution, creating the 'best' out of a for better or for worse potential. Because most would argue being better is better. Who would design their baby to be weak and ugly and sick, if they could easily have it otherwise? Who would want to be weak sick and ugly if they could easily have it otherwise?

reply to post by Phage



Phage, i don't really get what's your point here. Given your, publicly admitted, stance on genetic engineering and your attitude towards criticism of it, you certainly seem to approve of the ideological basis of eugenics.

"Enhancement ... for a better tomorrow."

Old Eugenics vs. New Genetics

Ultimately, the paper concludes that despite significant procedural, legislative and administrative differences between the old eugenics and the new genetics, and despite significant spatial, temporal and cultural variations in interpretation and implementation, at the ideological level, there is essentially no difference. The old eugenics was genetics and the new genetics is eugenics.

the genetic future

Genetically engineering our children will likely start with eliminating deadly diseases that owe their origin to some genetic factor. As the technique becomes more widespread and we get accustomed to it, acceptable applications will nudge towards less fatal diseases, and eventually to "improving" intelligence and various cosmetic factors (at some other time we'll discuss that loaded word!).

It will be very hard to draw the line between what is acceptable and what is not because on one side of the line or the other, there will always be an intermediate case that will make the line seem arbitrary.

And at each point, those destined to profit will be keenly pointing out the arbitrariness of the line so that their application can be given a green light by government and by society.

It is crucial that we begin thinking about these issues. However, we cannot ignore that, through genetic engineering, we are already engaged in a massive eugenics project on other species. This project has hardly been scrutinized at all in public debate. Those capable of implementing the technology are assumed to also be capable of assessing whether and how it should be implemented.

So, what was your problem with Tesla again?

reply to post by ImaFungi

What do you think of child protective services? "Society doesnt think nature is good enough, they feel they need to make laws and such"

I think that CPS is a very necessary service. I also understand that humans are subject to failures in judgement which can sometimes lead to poor decisions. This is one of the strongest point against eugenics, the idea that another human should have the ability to determine who is fit to reproduce.

What I meant with nature and evolution, is that undesirable parents who are not capable of taking care of themselves and their child have a greater chance of dieing, and their offspring dieing, so in this sense, evolution is a process of creating more 'yes contextually and relatively' desirable parents.

It is one of the functions of society to care for such children, whether due to poor parenting or being orphaned. It is not a function of society to decide if those children should be born.

So have you read articles regarding being able to choose and omit genes in babies and stuff?

Yes. Genetic engineering is not the same thing as eugenics. Genetic engineering does not remove one of the must basic human rights.

reply to post by Phage


That's no longer the methods of eugenics.

You're clueless, Phage.

reply to post by talklikeapirat

Phage, i don't really get what's your point here.

There are actually several points. Some more obvious than others.

"Enhancement ... for a better tomorrow."

As I have repeatedly said genetic engineering is not eugenics (with all due respect to Dr. Ekberg's opinion). Genetic engineering does not entail compulsory sterilization of those considered unfit by...someone.

So, what was your problem with Tesla again?

My problem with Tesla is his stance on eugenics. I don't like the idea of eugenics. I don't like the idea of compulsory sterilization of those considered unfit by...someone.

You didn't provide a source for that last external quote but it doesn't really matter. I don't consider animals to be human.

reply to post by QuantriQueptidez

That's no longer the methods of eugenics.

Hopefully not. Hopefully there are no "methods of eugenics" at all.

I really dont care what tesla did and what he thought. I am not interested in Tesla. I am not interested in idealizing a person.
I am interested in his ideas and concepts.

I dont wait for a person to be perfect to see the value of ideas.

A person ist just a " channel"..a medium for ideas. The ideas can be clean. The channel can be polluted.

Originally posted by liejunkie01

Originally posted by Freenrgy2
reply to post by Phage

 

Yeah, getting pretty sick and tired of the eugenics = Nazism comparison. Sure, the Nazi's twisted the principle of guided reproduction and turned into something evil. But, can anyone tell me why, if were possible, it wouldn't be a bad idea to restrict reproduction using methods that were 100% reversible,

And don't give me that "you're playing God bulls***." From a societal standpoint, think of how a lot of negative aspects of society could be changed over the course of a couple generations. Instead of killing babies, just limit reproduction until someone can prove they are able to raise a child (monetarily, emotionally, etc.)

Sure, there are cases where great leaders were born into families that had nothing, but I would rather see guided reproduction over killing babies because of a "mistake" someone made.

Um,

Ok,

I prefer freedom friend.

That means the right for each individual person to choose the path they wish to walk.

Not some self serving "better than everyone else" traitor of humanity making the decisions for us all.
Hell you might not have been born if we adopted your messed up ideology.

Seriously, your not playing god. You are playing the fool. The one who thinks that they deserve to be here and someon else does'nt. Get the irony?

Yeah, I get the irony that this exists everyday with abortions.