Nicola Tesla. Stifled Hero.

Originally posted by Phage
How about joining the discussion about the topic?

I did in my first post in here.

And I've continued as this discussion is about the relevance of Tesla's Eugenicist thoughts. If they are relevant regarding the "stifled hero" aspect, then they are relevant for a much broader application. Which creates a very relevant and... interesting... foundation to build from.

Originally posted by Phage
The headline is what it is.

Indeed it is!

reply to post by ErgoTheEgo

It's the "hero" aspect that is the crux of the topic.

To clarify:
Is it reasonable that an avowed eugenicist be placed in high standing as a hero to mankind when his concept of mankind excludes elements deemed, by him, to be unworthy of producing children.

reply to post by Phage

I absolutely agree that it is what the crux of the matter you are presenting.

I'm addressing it, and the foundation your OP lays, head on.

Then following it through to the logical, rational, reasonable, conclusion and the implications contained within.

reply to post by Phage

The headline is what it is.

It's wrong.
The man's name was Nikola.
I'm sure you wouldn't want your name to be incorrectly spelled.

reply to post by ErgoTheEgo

Well, so far I've seen a single post from you which seems to be some what on topic, though I don't quite get the Jurrasic Park relevance.

So. Do you think it is reasonable to revere a eugenicist?

There are many cases where the evil intent of some particular person is "proven" on ATS because of their history in the eugenics movement. Apparently you would not agree with such an assesment?

reply to post by zilebeliveunknown

Oh damn. Well. I guess that blows the whole idea out of the water.
Sorry everybody.

reply to post by Phage

I'm sorry if it's not coming through in a way that is clear for you.

It's very simple. Follow this train of thought to its natural outcome knowing what you know.

why are we all skirting arout the obvious issue?

He didn't like fat people either, or those who dressed funny (in his opinion)

you know when youre behind a large person in a shop, its the middle of summer and somehow they think its ok to wear a vest 2 sizes too small. (they might have a small butterfly tatto).

tesla knew what he was talking about.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by ErgoTheEgo

 

It's the "hero" aspect that is the crux of the topic.

Then lets address that directly.

To clarify:
Is it reasonable that an avowed eugenicist be placed in high standing as a hero to mankind when his concept of mankind excludes elements deemed, by him, to be unworthy of producing children.

Yes.

1
a : a mythological or legendary figure often of divine descent endowed with great strength or ability
b : an illustrious warrior
c : a man admired for his achievements and noble qualities
d : one who shows great courage

check (bolded)

2
a : the principal male character in a literary or dramatic work
b : the central figure in an event, period, or movement

check (bolded)

3
plural usually he·ros : submarine 2

N/A

4
: an object of extreme admiration and devotion : idol

check

Source

I underlined your text for a reason. This is irrelevant to if he was a hero for mankind. His deeds meet the criteria. Considering the context of the known science at the time, his opinions towards eugenics don't discredit his status.

reply to post by QuantriQueptidez

c : a man admired for his achievements and noble qualities

Yes, we know that you consider eugenicists to be noble. I've already said he was a very good inventor.

d : one who shows great courage

Not sure about the "courage" part. He was very self confident though.

b : the central figure in an event, period, or movement

When I guess. Sort of. I guess Hitler would also qualify then.

Originally posted by Phage
So. Do you think it is reasonable to revere a eugenicist?

There are many cases where the evil intent of some particular person is "proven" on ATS because of their history in the eugenics movement. Apparently you would not agree with such an assesment?

I'll spell it out. You are adding credibility to that which you counter. You are eating mud to spite mud eaters and in the process creating quite powerful ammo.

To answer your question: I don't believe in heroes. I do believe in context. I do believe in works that work and works that can be set aside.

I guess Hitler would also qualify then.

youve brought up Hitler again for no apparent reason.
when eugenics is mentioned you immedialtly say nazi.

tesla wasnt a nazi.
the nazi's were interested in lots of things.doesn't mean all those things are bad.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by TheOd

 

I see you don't understand this concept.

Actually, I do.
But it's not really the topic, is it?

What do you think about Tesla the eugenicist and the real motives behind his work? Was he working toward a perfect world where only those who were deemed "suitable" would be allowed to have children?

edit on 8/3/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Correct and correct I was brave enough back in 2009 to have spoken with his child and he did concur it was always for the better good ! It's what the government added to his inventions that were not his creations-etc.
Ironic as it was the day I spoke to his son was his dads Birthday!
I just love going and being guided to the source otherwise we just have rumors.
I always need data myself-God Bless all...

Trinity
s&f

This is a good topic and something I've been considering lately, though not in Tesla's case.

How should we view the influential people of pre-WW2 history? I think by and large they operated with a moral standard and view of humanity that would be found reprehensible today. Even those opposing Hitler were doing so not simply for humanitarian reasons, but more so for selfish reasons. America felt threatened, not sympathetic toward Nazi victims.

World War 2 was the wake up call that created the new paradigms of humanitarianism. Prior to the war policy was driven by unabashed selfish economic interest at the expense of anyone else. This hasn't disappeared at all but has been publicly supressed. Thankfully, I think because of the intolerance toward overt human rights abuse each generation has improved it's regard for humanitarian principles.

Tesla, and all of the people of his generation were in an intellectual environment that fell short of today's common morals. This is no excuse for them, and I dislike people saying it's okay because everyone was like that. These ideas expressed by Tesla are frankly criminally insane and our view of him should be tainted.

Just like our view of slavers, conquistadors, colonialists...oppressors of all kinds. None of these people should be seen as heroic or role models.

Which brings me to the larger question I've thought a lot about lately: should future generations deliberately distance themselves from supporting these people? Should we teach the ideas separately from the person, and stop honoring the ethically shady people who came up with them?

The people who I've thought about the most in this context are America's founding fathers. Should they really be honored? Or should future generations distance themselves from them because of their policies toward Africans and Native Americans?

I think it's something to consider, and it wouldn't surprise me if this type of thinking catches on in the coming years until there is some kind of official declaration of condemning those that created this system and reforming with a fresh start. I just hope if this is true, it isn't driven as much by anger as hope for a future distinctly better than the past.


Of course, there is the other side of this. Are we fooling ourselves by claiming a higher level of morality than what was common 100 or 200 years ago? Are we in denial of human nature? Can we continue to demand a higher and higher respect for all of humanity without becoming intolerant to dissenters to the point of infringing on freedom of speech.

Even today, a eugenicist should be able to have their say be received rationally. We shouldn't just say, "No that's wrong!" Before considering that it may be right against common wisdom.

Hopefully we come to a point as a society where even the more morbid ideas can be discussed rationally without setting fire to the one proposing it. Because, sure, that guy might suggest killing half the world but after we explain to him calmly that it is a stupid idea and allowing him to go about his business he just may invent an anti-gravity dark matter flying saucer submarine like Tesla.

Some of the best minds on the planet have advocated for Eugenics or similiar practices. Should we throw away their achievements simply because of the way they felt on how to properly better humanity?

Tesla aside, HG Wells, Alexander Graham Bell, Margaret Sanger, Leland Stanford, George Bernard Shaw, Luther Burbank, Sir Francis Galton and old Onkel Alf himself, who was many things, but certainly far from stupid. Muhammad Ali didn't believe in racial mixing because it destroys cultural identity... is he no longer one of the greatest boxers? Plato touches upon this in his Republic ( an excellent read I might add).

What does Herbert Spencer say on the matter? "Fostering the good-for-nothing at the expense of the good is an extreme cruelty. It is a deliberate storing up of miseries for future generations. There is no greater curse to posterity than that of bequeathing them an increasing population of imbeciles.''

The greatest critique of eugenics is by GK Chesteron in Eugenics and Other Evils. His arguments are largely emotional however, which is why I don't agree with them.

The world has hardly become better since the end of WW2 for all of our medical and technological advancements... which came about through vast human suffering in the first place. Degeneracy is rampant and more socially acceptable than ever before. Greed and usury are acceptable. People would rather gyrate and feel good instead of self betterment. I'm hardly saying folks need to be monastic, but nobody has self control anymore.

I would glady sterilize the worthless or infirm in my own family if it was for the good of the future of humanity. Why would you not? Is the life of an imbecile worth more than the life of a potential genius? Hardly. If you feel it is, you've taken an emotional "feel good" route rather than an analytical.

In closing, yes Tesla did advocate for the removal of certain elements and I feel rightly so. He was a more accomplished mind than anyone on this board will ever be. An analogy: The unibombers methods are contemptable, but they do not take away from his philosophical argument about technological slavery. Tesla's feelings on race hygiene do not take away from his technical accomplishments. If we are going to take away from an individual based on their person, than Martin Luther King Jr. should have all monuments and namesakes removed. He was a plagiarist, alcoholic and a womanizer. After all, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Excellent thread and topic OP.

Call me naive, but I had no idea that Tesla thought about these things in this way.

Then again, his research was funded by the top bankers, and we all know what they really think of the common peon.

I like to think then, that Tesla's opinions about such topics changed and his judgement swayed after working for the likes of Rockefeller and J.P Morgan...


...Or I'm being naive again and Tesla really was a hardcore eugenist through-and-through.

S&F

reply to post by SmoKeyHaZe


Rockellers and Carnegie institutes (Cold Spring Harbour)larglely funded eugenics research. It could be one the reasons they were apt to fund Tesla in the first place.

Originally posted by PatrickGarrow17
Which brings me to the larger question I've thought a lot about lately: should future generations deliberately distance themselves from supporting these people? Should we teach the ideas separately from the person, and stop honoring the ethically shady people who came up with them?

Isn't that engaging in the Eugenics of ideas and information? Memes if we wish.

Are we to assume the propagation of ideas and information is any less influential than genes regarding the development of civilization?

Yet we spend how much time trying to preserve genes while allowing wholesale slaughter and devastation of ideas and information?

Doesn't it make sense that future generations will make SMARTER choices if they understood the feelings and mood of the people offering information from the past rather than interpreting it through modern filters only?

People overwhelmingly speak and read in an "it looks normal from here!" mindset... which when transplanted between times become identified with a different set of emotions. What will be said with very little malicious intent one day can carry hyper offensiveness the next. Consider especially certain slang terms that arise during wars.

Something said with scathing hatred in the past can be read as "amusing" today if the source isn't understood... because of the same lack of appropriate connection between emotions. You can see how a hateful bigot using a manner of speaking which comes off as amusing a couple of centuries later might wind up elevated and honored.

This is why these days there is more effort put into controlling who you listen to than who you have sex or even a baby with. It's the propagation of ideas that directs the civilization now... so people were "liberated" to mate with whoever they like.

It's all right there in front of us.

Understanding the people is just as important as understanding the ideas... but we slaughter these memories and turn them into fragile facades, show dogs, heads in jars... that can't actually survive on their own.

reply to post by ErgoTheEgo


I didn't mean to say that future generations should stop learning about the people, I meant that maybe we should stop associating the greatness of an idea with the greatness of the person. Also, the greatness of a person (morally/ethically) should probably be prioritized above genius because it is something more people are capable of.

These people from history are taught as heroes, make no mistake about it. It gives the impression that it is okay to be corrupt if your peers are and high achievement negates low morality. I think our understanding of history as a society is disrupted by the inability to diminish the perfection of those in the history books. We can't become better if we can't acknowledge Tesla, Ford, or Washington as examples of what not to be more as much as role models.

In saying we should try and distance ourselves from this past I mean in terms of pride and not understanding.

Originally posted by PatrickGarrow17
stop associating the greatness of an idea with the greatness of the person. Also, the greatness of a person (morally/ethically) should probably be prioritized above genius because it is something more people are capable of.

These people from history are taught as heroes, make no mistake about it. It gives the impression that it is okay to be corrupt if your peers are and high achievement negates low morality. I think our understanding of history as a society is disrupted by the inability to diminish the perfection of those in the history books. We can't become better if we can't acknowledge Tesla, Ford, or Washington as examples of what not to be more as much as role models.

In saying we should try and distance ourselves from this past I mean in terms of pride and not understanding.

I hear you, but I think something is still being missed out on what I'm trying to get at.

The people we prize as morally/ethically *now* stand a high chance of not being viewed as such later. Things that we think are normal now even if a small percentage are complaining... might one day be viewed the same as Eugenics today.

The same problem will arise, people that were held up as examples in 2013 by 2113 will be seen as absolutely cruel (in ignorance)... except WE held them up as moral exemplars rather than the exemplars of intelligence. Same outcome and same need to somehow communicate clearly about the past regardless of the *reason* the person is held in high regard. Consider how adored some of the most vilified from the past were.