Nicola Tesla. Stifled Hero.

I realize I'm throwing a monkey wrench, so to speak , into this thead.....but what if we were all, here and now, a product of eugenics?

And as for Tesla, no sourcing because those type of sources tend to disappear over time, sure, he was a eugenecist.....otherwise. Free energy for all? But he didn't give over the info to allow that to happen, did he?
and what does that say about him and his motives?
Tetra50

Anyone, throught history, who claims to have the answer to "free energy" for the "masses," has never supplied it ever....

Meaning, the smartest amongst us, think there are the dumbest amongst us "who don't deserve," such....
And, that, in MHO, says it all. We are all ego driven, thinking we are better than our brethren, and hold back for egi and judement of our "fellow" man, cause they just don't deserve it, or, I won't allow you to have it because I'm better than you....
JMHO.
Tetra50
Thanks for the thread, OP.
Tetra50

History is littered with people whose ideas had a profound effect on the world and I'd say most of them were a little 'quirky' or even borderline insane at times and Tesla was no exception. Eugenics was the 'in' new age line of thought around that turn of century so he wasn't the only open supporter of it as it was something of a 'qualification' for mixing in high society circles and meeting the 'right' influential people.

We also need to put some things into perspective like Tesla's vision of 'free energy for all' - he'd considered the Niagara Falls (hydro) as being sufficient to power the known world at the time but the conceivable demand back then was many orders of magnitude less than what the demand has grown to today.

I'm grateful for his imaginative contributions and I forgive him for his 'quirks' that seem to be the norm for such creative people. Yin & yang.

reply to post by Phage


There is a fine line between genius and madness....

On a social or intimate level, Tesla was not a comfortable person. He had an aversion....almost fear....of women which might shed some light on your OP.

reply to post by CIAGypsy


Where did you hear he feared women? If anything I can imagine his aversion similar to Issac Newton who died a virgin because his work was his only true love and he didnt want to be distracted from it. And, we all know women are bat snip crazy.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by QuantriQueptidez

 

No.
I choose not to redefine an established term in order to create the impression that two different things are the same thing.

Really now. It seems you're doing just that!

The modern field and term were first formulated by Sir Francis Galton in 1883,[21] drawing on the recent work of his half-cousin Charles Darwin.[22][23] He wrote down many of his observations and conclusions in a book, Inquiries into Human Faculty and Its Development.
The origins of the concept began with certain interpretations of Mendelian inheritance, and the theories of August Weismann.[24]
The word eugenics derives from the Greek word eu (good or well) and the suffix -genēs (born), and was coined by Sir Francis Galton in 1883 to replace the word stirpiculture (also see: Oneida stirpiculture) which he had used previously but which had come to be mocked by people of culture due to its perceived sexual overtones.[25] Galton defined eugenics as "the study of all agencies under human control which can improve or impair the racial quality of future generations".[26] Eugenics has, from the very beginning, meant many different things to many different people. Historically, the term has referred to everything from prenatal care for mothers to forced sterilization and euthanasia. To population geneticists the term has included the avoidance of inbreeding without necessarily altering allele frequencies; for example, J. B. S. Haldane wrote that "the motor bus, by breaking up inbred village communities, was a powerful eugenic agent".[27] Much debate has taken place in the past, as it does today, as to what exactly counts as eugenics.[28] Some types of eugenics deal only with perceived beneficial and/or detrimental genetic traits. These are sometimes called "pseudo-eugenics" by proponents of strict eugenics

Eugenics

Yet you continue to mention one aspect of negative eugenics which was used mostly decades ago. Why? Could it be that you're ignorant on what exactly the "established" meaning of eugenics is?

It seems so!

reply to post by QuantriQueptidez


I got tripped up on that too, but then after looking at what Phage was saying I realized that Phage seem to be using the definition laid out by the International Eugenics Congresses back in the early 1900's. Which is still being used today.

reply to post by Guyfriday


I asked him to clearly qualify his understanding of the term, and he refused, simply stating, "forced sterilization" over and over again. It's but one tactic that eugenicists have used.

Then he makes the claim that I'm "clearly" for "eugenics".

Under his qualification of the term, I am not.

THIS is why he needed to qualify the term. So we could all get on the same page.

As is, he made a clustermuck, and a whole lot of assumptions for no good reason.

reply to post by QuantriQueptidez
Way back on page 2 he stated:

Originally posted by Phage
The basis of eugenics is that some humans are more suitable to exist than others, based solely on their genetic heritage. Whether or not it was "thought" to be beneficial is not really relevant. What is relevant is what it implies and the attitude toward humans that it represents. The idea is that some are more human than others and that there are those who have the right to decide which are which.

As far as "mainstream" goes; yes, a lot of people advocated it. Many, very many, did not. Including Thomas Edison among them.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Sounds like it conforms to the IEC definition to me.

reply to post by Guyfriday


After which point he made it clear that he equated eugenics with "forced sterilization" and denied all other tactics.

He made a fool of his self.

Look at the original definition by Galton, the methods used a century ago, the improved science, and the numerous new tactics used today. To ignore the advancements and claim they aren't eugenics is ignorant.

reply to post by ImaFungi


It was in a book I read as a kid about an encounter between Tesla and a woman who admired him. It was bizarre enough that it imprinted itself on my brain.

You want to read about how truly "mad" that Tesla was....check out this abstract - Mind of Tesla

Some interesting facts:

Apart from his senses and vivid visualization, Tesla’s body, habits, will power, and social interactions all exhibited anomalies that merit mention and reflection. Although he suffered a mental breakdown at 25, and was prone to nervous exhaustion after long periods without rest, his body exhibited remarkable features. Tesla had a superhuman appetite for work. He was “able to work thirty-eight years almost without a day’s interruption, and [could] find himself still strong and fresh in body and mind” [1]. He also had enormous will power that could not only sustain a punishing schedule but could also permanently banish undesirable habits that he had formed, once he was so convinced. Some of his more notable traits are enumerated below:

During his first year at the Polytechnic at Graz, he “regularly started [his] work at three o’clock in the morning and continued until eleven at night, no Sundays or holidays excepted” [1].

Tesla excelled at languages and knew English, French, German, Italian and the Slavic dialects [3, p 14].

He had a prodigious memory and could store entire logarithmic tables in his mind [3, p 14].

He was left-handed but later became ambidextrous [2].

He was not good at drawing [1].

At the age of fifty-nine, when he slipped on icy ground, he righted himself like a cat while in the air and landed on his feet [1].

At sixty-three his body shape and weight had remained unchanged for thirty-five years [1].

He was attracted to gambling but gave it up when admonished by his parents. He not only “conquered [his] passion then and there …[but also] …tore it from [his] heart so as not to leave even a trace of desire” [1].

He took up smoking, but on realizing that it would ruin his health, he gave it up permanently [1].

When Tesla discovered that the innocent cup of coffee he consumed every morning could precipitate heart trouble, he discontinued it by strenuous will [1].

He saw his conquest of bad habits in a different light from most people. He said:

In this way I checked and bridled other habits and passions and have not only preserved my life but derived an immense amount of satisfaction from what most men would consider privation and sacrifice. [1]

One interesting question that arises is whether Tesla’s extraordinary visualization was in any way related to his tremendous will power.

We're discussing this thread on ATS Live! - 10th August 2013

reply to post by Phage


I'm not sure that Tesla suggesting that some people should be sterilized means that he was a Eugenicist. It is a cruel concept, and excessive, but there is a great deal more to eugenics.

From my understanding Tesla was not a fan of Hitler.

Tesla was not person who worshiped wealth, he was an extremely dedicated scientist, so it is easy to see how he could have some very harsh concepts.

As far as ether is concerned, wasn't Tesla's ideas on ether a modified version, with electricity being the ether?

Modern science embraces force theory, which, while workable, doesn't explain what that force is.

Wouldn't Einstein's theory on the warping of the fabric time and space be just another modified ether theory, with a different name?

Tesla did demonstrate that frequencies could tear a structure apart, with very little energy.

I suspect Tesla didn't have philosophy for the future of humanity, he was more interested in what he could do with science.

poet1b


Tesla did demonstrate that frequencies could tear a structure apart, with very little energy.

He also allegedly remarked that he could shatter the earth into 2 parts, though who he
made that remark to is unknown

reply to post by Angelic Resurrection


If memory serves me right, Tesla stated that in theory he should destroy the planet with massive explosions set off at the right frequency over a period of time.

I suspect his death ray was probably based on this concept.

reply to post by Phage


You might want to consider that laissez faire capitalism is every bit as foolish and probably more cruel than eugenics.

And doesn't even have the lofty goal of improving humanity.

The idea that the accumulation of wealth is somehow a means of natural selection, when the means of maximizing profit is destroying our planet doesn't make sense, to put it mildly. I also think it is more cruel to enslave people than to sterilize them.

reply to post by Phage


"Science is but a perversion of itself unless it has as its ultimate goal the betterment of humanity." Dr. Nikola Tesla

“...I finally succeeded in reaching electrical movements or rates of delivery of electrical energy not only approximating, but, as shown in many comparative tests and measurements, actually surpassing those of lightning discharges..." Dr. Nikola Tesla Patent 787,412 - Art of Transmitting Electrical Energy through the Natural Mediums

So Phage the Unclear bomb and Unclear Energy was for the benefit of all mankind?

In live event/concert TV broadcasting a lip sync test is done to delay the audio output signals to sync with video. The live audio gets ahead of the live video, which proves Einstein's writings should be moved to the Fictional Science genre.

reply to post by NINEZEROONE

Dr. Nikola Tesla

No "Dr."
Tesla did not have a doctorate. He had a nasty gambling habit and dropped out of school.

So Phage the Unclear bomb and Unclear Energy was for the benefit of all mankind?

What?

The live audio gets ahead of the live video, which proves Einstein's writings should be moved to the Fictional Science genre.

What?

reply to post by Phage


Yes, Tesla did have a doctorate, awarded in 1937.

While Tesla took up gambling during college, it wasn't the reason he left, as some have speculated. It is more likely a disagreement with a professor, which resulted in his development of 3 phase power generation.