Talk:Euthenics
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details. | ||||||||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. | ||||||||
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale. | ||||||||
|
|||||||||
[edit] dysgenics
- Many things that are euthenic are also dysgenic.
That sounds awful, why? Also this article presents Euthenics as being in contrtast to eugenics. Why wouldn't they be done in harmony? Sam Spade 19:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
- The idea is presumably that helping individuals to overcome disabilities is likely to have an adverse effect on the species — as, for example, providing glasses means that people with poor eyesight are able to pass on their genes; if we prevented such people from reproducing, the effect would (might) be to remove the relevant genes from the population.
- The sources at which I looked (and from which I got the parts that I contributed) all presented the two as being in opposition. Someone might, of course, hold eugenics views in some areas and euthenics views in others. In the example above (and those in the text), though, there seems to be a clear disagreement between the two views.
- I'm not really convinced that Eudaimonia is an appropriate "see also"; what did you have in mind? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
My thought is this: The nazi's promoted education and social services for those they saw as Übermensch. Wouldn't their program be a combination of Eugenics and Euthenics, or am I misunderstanding the concept? This article is the first I've heard of it... Sam Spade 19:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
- I'm doing some research... Euthenics: The Science of Controllable Environment : A Plea for Better Conditions As a First Step Toward Higher Human Efficiency (Public health in America) by Ellen H. Richards, ISBN 0405098278 seems to be backing up my assumptions, from what I skimmed. More to come... Sam Spade 20:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] From article
The result of the euthenics approach would thus have long-term, genetic effects, but would achieve them very differently from eugenics.
Many who support eugenics believe that euthenics is ultimately pointless, or at least less effective than eugenics, because it deals with the consequences of a problem rather than the problem itself. Those who support euthenics argue that eugenic approaches work by taking choices – and especially reproductive choices – away from people, while euthenics allows people to make better-informed decisions, as in the example of genetic diseases.
- I am fairly certaion this is incorrect. Is there a source for this? Is this the sort of reasoning presented in the Encyclopedia of Anthropology? Sam Spade 20:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I took it all (paraphrased, of course) from the Enc. of A., though the Web sources I looked at confirmed it. Specific critics weren't mentioned, unfortunately. If I come across any on the Web or elsewhere I'll add them. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
- I'm very curious who criticised her theory, and why. Ellen Richards is awesome, personally coining the terms euthenics, ecology, home economics and Oekology, the first woman to graduate and teach at MIT, and etc... I only first heard of her today, and she's already my favorite feminist! ;) Sam Spade 23:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
They probably criticized her because she didn't call it "LIBERAL Euthenics".Danshawen 04:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Pasteur quote
I got that from the first page of Euthenics: The Science of Controllable Environment : A Plea for Better Conditions As a First Step Toward Higher Human Efficiency (Public health in America), so I think its relevant. He clearly had this sort of thing in mind, even if he didn't use this term. Sam Spade 23:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
