Nicola Tesla. Stifled Hero.

reply to post by Phage


I believe Tesla was basically trying to say that Eugenics wasn't a bad idea, but the way the Nazis went about achieving it was unquestionably evil and unnecessary.

After all, are you attracted to beauty or ugliness? health or disease? It is natural to evolve towards the better of the two, however to murder all individuals who dont fall in line is insane imho.

After all, are you attracted to beauty or ugliness?

reply to post by combatmaster


I just wanted to reply to this. Beauty is subjective. I have friends totally and completely in love with men and women that I think are, though nice, decent people, very ugly. So who's vision of "beauty" would be the standard there?

Diversity within the gene pool ensures our species survival. We evolve to the environment around us. By limiting that we doom our species to extinction, so no, eugenics is not (in my humble opinion) a "good" thing.

But, on topic.

Every human being is like a fine cut gem. The sparkliest facet often causes one to overlook the defects that exist elsewhere. Tesla was a "fine" gem within my metaphor. His contribution of A/C power (among other things) was the sparkly facet, his OCD, Judgmental traits among others were flaws in the gem.

No human being is perfect which is why we need each other to create the "perfect" gem.

reply to post by Phage

Do we really want to idolize a eugenicist? Was Tesla really working for the common man? Who knows what the true target of this inventive genius was?

Your joking right?

reply to post by Phage


it's well known that the worlds smartest people are always a bit excentric,

if we discount everything said by anyone whom has a difference in opinion in any matter from our own then we would be left discounting the creations ideas and opinions of everyone, as no two people on this earth completely agree on everything.

reply to post by mymymy


Well. I believe that Davinci among others was actually onto something.

I think that beauty is subjective based on our own imperfection. Subjective to a degree, but ultimately there is some sort of universal code whereby beauty is actually a constant. It is only subjective to the corrupted mind/unenlightened.

Beauty is also recognition (on an unconcious instinctive level) a marker of good health.

It is all so deeply connected and has not yet been fully acknowledged by modern science, so to say beauty is subjective is really not a fully true statement!

a reply to: combatmaster

This just now popped up in my inbox, so sorry for the late reply.

Anyway, I disagree, beauty IS subjective. I find Miley Cyrus (?) hideous, most don't. I think Julia Roberts is ugly as sin, most don't. I like people with meat on their bones (not fat, you know what I mean), most of my friends like the anorexic looking women, I would not, or ever tell them they are wrong in their vision of beauty because that's what THEY like. NO ONE should ever dictate that to anyone else. The OP's thread is sound

originally posted by: mymymy
a reply to: combatmaster

This just now popped up in my inbox, so sorry for the late reply.

Anyway, I disagree, beauty IS subjective. I find Miley Cyrus (?) hideous, most don't. I think Julia Roberts is ugly as sin, most don't. I like people with meat on their bones (not fat, you know what I mean), most of my friends like the anorexic looking women, I would not, or ever tell them they are wrong in their vision of beauty because that's what THEY like. NO ONE should ever dictate that to anyone else. The OP's thread is sound

I disagree, Beauty is our translated perceived identification with a universal constant that we seem to have forgotten over time!

Each individual therefore perceives or connects with this in different ways, we all think we are seeing beauty, but there is something in common in all the differences we perceive, you call this 'subjective' beauty. But it doesnt change the fact that it all stems from a constant, so to us, imperfect beings, we perceive it as subjective! But it IS constant!

a reply to: Phage

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.

Im curious if maybe its miss-interpretation possibly? Could he be questioning our notions of civilization and the race by showing what the implications are of those values while not necessarily personally agreeing with it?

I don't agree with eugenics but the ideas are definitely implied in the value systems of science and civilization...namely "survival of the fittest". He didn't invent those values...he sees them for what they are though even if we don't.

As far as being harsh expressing disgust for overweight people...that is a FAR cry from implying that he wanted to install a eugenics program...Firing a secretary because she was overweight might actually not have anything to do with her weight directly and something to do with her job performance as someone who was overweight...critic of clothing?

I really think these are FAR reaches to imply that he was a eugenicist because he had preferences on weight and dress...At the very least this just means he was human after all...and succumbed to many of the judgements humans tend to make. Actually no more or less judgmental or discriminative than our modern day CEO's or business owners...

I think this is a huge reach personally...is there better evidence out there to support the notion he wanted to pull a hitler?

a reply to: Phage

Sometimes I think we forget that even geniuses are human, and are as prone to human failings and weaknesses as the rest of the world.

Certainly I believe that the idea of selective breeding is abominable and its a disappointment to hear that someone of Tesla's intelligence would subscribe to it. Was he a just a reflection of the times he lived in?

Jefferson was a slave owner, but it still doesn't take away from the beauty of the words in his Declaration of Independence.

Great man often have great failings. In fact, the greater the man, the greater his failings seem to be.

To put everything in perspective. sure the eugenist view don't favor him and it seem he supported more extremities . it can be argued he meant mentally disabled people and criminals . well i don;t recommend disabled folks breeding cuz that just leads to the same problem in the next generation. i wouldn;t go as far as compulsory though.

and i got no problem limiting criminals right to breed.

and i read earlier post suggesting he might wanted world domination. well sure you can suspect that.

but lets look at the unselfish things he did. he gave the world alternating current, torn up his contract with westinghouse to save his company, and assumably tried to give world free energy(which ruined him when jp morgan withdrew support but it can be argued he wasn;t carefully enough to protect from finanical liability ).


if he had been more sly, things might 've play out differently. if he collected fund owed him from westinghouse contract and made himself millionare and appointed westinghouse instead as ceo of his empire(someone he could trust), he might 've had evnough fund to built wardenclyffe tower and fund future projects and built a golden age on earth instead.


now does that kind of unselfishness sound like someone with ambition for world domination?


seemingly he wasn;t sly enough to protect himself from likes of debt liability.


practically, without money you can't put ideas into practice in this world.

originally posted by: zilebeliveunknown
reply to post by Phage

 

Sorry Phage, this thread is a bit ridiculous.
There were numbers of great scientists from the past with various controversial attitudes.
I prefer to remember them on great work that they have achieved for the benefit of all mankind.

I agree.

Nikola Tesla has been undermined. His day for reckoning is coming fast.