Nicola Tesla. Stifled Hero.

Everybody is practicing Eugenics when they choose mates. Or choosing not to mate at all.

I would really like the discussion to someday evolve beyond finger pointing.

On that front, I give this thread a "Clever girl!" sticker.

Originally posted by geobro
people forget he lived in a time when it was the american thing to do they even handed out prizes for the best eugenics clinics /states and gave the idea to germany .

he was a bit eccentric but all smart people are

The "Everyone was doing it defence", nice one. So that's what people will resort to on this? Oddly enough I saw a link posted about Edison declaring he was against it publicly.

Seems like the evil satanic invention stealer was able to decry eugenics but not the martyrish Messiah of all things electrical.

Damn, now I just can't feel the same way when I use my toaster, radar, geiger counter, cellphone, computer and x-box.

...cause you know... Tesla invented them all way before his time.

I bet he invented this ear picker I'm picking my ear with right now too..

0.o

reply to post by Phage

Just so it's clear that you made that connection, not I.

Ok, then please allow me to ask you a question based on your ascertainment:
"There is a strong indication that "all mankind" was not what he had in mind at all."

What do you think Tesla's inventions were meant for, considering his thoughts on eugenics?

reply to post by QuantriQueptidez

A very well thought out response. I have some comments. Please forgive me for the item by item response. I know some find it annoying.

So when he mentioned, "mankind", it was more of how be believed mankind should be shaped in order to remain on a sustainable/good/ideal path.

To be blunt...so did Hitler. No, I'm not comparing methods. I am comparing motivations.

Eugenic practices have evolved far past it's barbaric roots. Instead of sterilizing, we offer abortion and give them free in lower class areas.

I do not agree that allowing a woman to do what she wishes with her body is eugenics.

It could be seen that civilization offers the ability to coddle the weak, and even cater to the lowest common denominator in modern societies.

Since there is evidence of "coddling" that goes far back into human history this seems to be a rather invalid point. The idea here, again, is that someone determines who is "fit" to reproduce. The idea is not acceptable.

At the time, it seemed most reasonable to do what must be done in order to keep the species from allowing the weakest (in nature) to be the largest procreators (in civilization).

This is not about the "largest procreators". It is about any procreation.

I'm tired of responding to your obviously racist stance but I understand you believe Tesla was a great man.

reply to post by Phage

So which one was really working for the NWO?

I wasn't aware you actually believed in such a thing.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by QuantriQueptidez

 

To be blunt...so did Hitler. No, I'm not comparing methods. I am comparing motivations.

Good. I'm glad you have compared the motivations. Surely you can see that the same motivations can result in quite different actions, depending on many factors.

I do not agree that allowing a woman to do what she wishes with her body is eugenics.

Then you fail to see between the lines. You seem to focus here on a consent, rather than the action and it's outcome. This shows you aren't being objective. I expect better of you.

Since there is evidence of "coddling" that goes far back into human history this seems to be a rather invalid point. The idea here, again, is that someone determines who is "fit" to reproduce. The idea is not acceptable.

We have had coddling for as long as our species existed, however the point stands as valid. The reason it's valid, is that civilization allowed a far greater extent of coddling. You are confusing the old methods of practicing eugenics with the whole concept itself. This is fallacious.

This is not about the "largest procreators". It is about any procreation.

No. You made it about eugenics in the OP. I aimed to show how your understanding of eugenics is flawed. I did this to provide context to make the statement that eugenics isn't inherently evil, and that the method which was advised at the time, with our current understandings, was reasonable, however immoral you may choose to see it.

I'm tired of responding to your obviously racist stance but I understand you believe Tesla was a great man.

Please don't put words into my mouth. I understand this is a tiring battle for you to see through.

reply to post by QuantriQueptidez

No. You made it about eugenics in the OP. I aimed to show how your understanding of eugenics is flawed. I did this to provide context to make the statement that eugenics isn't inherently evil, and that the method which was advised at the time, with our current understandings, was reasonable, however immoral you may choose to see it.

So the below quote that was posted along with the OP is not "evil" ?? If not, fine. But don't cherry pick information and argue a non-existent point.

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.

reply to post by boncho


1. You don't believe in, "evil".

2. I did not "cherry pick", I gave a full response.

3. Go pick on someone else. You first post in this thread was ridiculous, and the latest in this light is a bit hypocritical.

reply to post by Rikku

removing bad genes from the gene pool is not such a bad thing,

I believe, and with some time can PROVE, that people who make statements such as this are IN FACT carriers of bad genes and are the ones who need to be eliminated first!

tesla was a one off, some might say bat $h** crazy.
he ended his days besotted with a pigeon, i think his personal life is irrelevant.

eugenics is a positive thing. and complicated, well its quite simple really.
i guess its the same with gm crops, people say its bad purely because they dont understand it.
oh well.

reply to post by Rikku

eugenics is a positive thing.

For those who would like to exercise it on others.

i guess its the same with gm crops, people say its bad purely because they dont understand it.
oh well.

No it isn't the same. There is no science which supports eugenics. The idea that the worth of human can be determined by genetics is not valid, scientifically or morally.

reply to post by Guyfriday

At least with Edison we knew where he stood (money) with Tesla we didn't have a clue.

Not accurate...Edison and Tesla parted ways after Edison refused to pay the 50K USD he owed Tesla...so Tesla was in it for the money...

Originally posted by QuantriQueptidez
reply to post by boncho

 

1. You don't believe in, "evil".

2. I did not "cherry pick", I gave a full response.

3. Go pick on someone else. You first post in this thread was ridiculous, and the latest in this light is a bit hypocritical.

Yes or no. You either agree with Tesla or you don't. Either you think the criminal and the insane (and many more because he said it was not enough) should be sterilized, or you don't.

This is a very cut and dry argument. It's not about eugenics in its entirety, or modern day eugenics, or eugenics without all the culling. It's about sterilizing criminals and insane people.

Either you want to or you don't.

I calculated in another thread 1 in 2.5 Males in the USA will end up with a criminal record or be in jail at some point. So think about it carefully.

Either you agree or you don't.

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.

reply to post by Rikku

eugenics is a positive thing. and complicated, well its quite simple really.

If it is so positive, I encourage you to be the type of advocate who ROLE MODELS the issue of death...you go first...

reply to post by boncho


Do we live in the early 20th century

Surely you don't think I'm that stupid to fall for your shenanigans.

Out of curiosity, why is the thread title not "Nikola Tesla. Eugenicist."?

The current title belies a different purpose... and one which if given full thought should be recognized as only resulting in being painted into a corner from which there is no escape.

reply to post by ErgoTheEgo

Just following a long and honored tradition on ATS as well as other media.
It's called attracting attention. Worked, huh?

Originally posted by QuantriQueptidez
reply to post by boncho

 

Do we live in the early 20th century

Surely you don't think I'm that stupid to fall for your shenanigans.

Oh silly me, here I thought this thread was about someone in the early 20th century. Ah, it is. I see. And time forgives all sins it seems.

reply to post by Phage

I would argue the other title would attract more.

You are laying a foundation that I don't think has been fully thought through.

reply to post by ErgoTheEgo

How about joining the discussion about the topic?
The headline is what it is.