Jump to content

The Conservative Party. All discussion here please

Recommended Posts

Anyone else notice this re-emergence of 'inferior' genetics and eugenics in public debates at the same time, and supported by the same people, as the UK government is stuffed to the gills with people who denounce experts, intellectuals and academics; extol nationalism and sexism; disdain human rights and empathy; obsess over national security, crime and punishment; engage in fraud with elections and in cronyist appointments; undermine the judiciary...?

 

Giz a shout when you get to the book-burning stage, yeah?

Edited by L00b

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, L00b said:

Anyone else notice this re-emergence of 'inferior' genetics and eugenics in public debates at the same time, and supported by the same people, as the UK government is stuffed to the gills with people who denounce experts, intellectuals and academics; extol nationalism and sexism; disdain human rights and empathy; obsess over national security, crime and punishment; engage in fraud with elections and in cronyist appointments; undermine the judiciary...?

 

Giz a shout when you get to the book-burning stage, yeah?

Has there been a re-emergence of inferior genetics and eugenics in public debate? One swallow doesn't make a summer. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Robin-H said:

Has there been a re-emergence of inferior genetics and eugenics in public debate? One swallow doesn't make a summer. 

You're as free to handwave the issue away, motivated by your apparent bias, as I am to draw attention to it, motivated by my own bias. Regardless of whether this really is just another dead cat bounced on the table by Cummings, rather than just another insight into xenofactors influencing future government policies.

 

Johnson's public record on the particular issues of genetics and eugenics, and the UK government's enduring official silence about this aborted appointment, says all that really needs to be said, given the level of appointment.

 

For the rest of it, thread readers are free to make up their own minds about that particular equation, according to their own moral compass :)

Edited by L00b

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, L00b said:

You're as free to handwave the issue away, motivated by your apparent bias, as I am to draw attention to it, motivated by my own bias. Regardless of whether this really is just another dead cat bounced on the table by Cummings, rather than just another insight into xenofactors influencing future government policies.

 

Johnson's public record on the particular issues of genetics and eugenics, and the UK government's enduring official silence about this aborted appointment, says all that really needs to be said, given the level of appointment.

 

For the rest of it, thread readers are free to make up their own minds about that particular equation, according to their own moral compass :)

I'll put it another way. I'd be interested to know what has made you think there has been re-emergence of the topics of inferior genetics and eugenics in public debates. You said you have noticed it, I'm just wondering how this has manifested. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Robin-H said:

I'll put it another way. I'd be interested to know what has made you think there has been re-emergence of the topics of inferior genetics and eugenics in public debates. You said you have noticed it, I'm just wondering how this has manifested. 

You can't have been paying much attention to ever more shrill political discourse and the electoral inroads of harder right politicians across Europe and the US in the past few years, so.

 

The mere fact that Sabisky was hired (I am giving your government the benefit of the doubt, that it performed at least as much due diligence in this hire, as any other employer would - including therefore, social media footprint) , shows the extent to which such topics are considered non-topics nowadays, through media normalisation over recent years.

 

A googling of 'eugenics' under the 'news' tab is a mere few seconds away. Don't forget to lob a few synonyms by way of alternatives in the query, to give the exercise a truer scope.

 

It dovetails neatly into a whole host of related debates, of particular relevance to the political course currently charted by such politicians (particularly "freedom of speech vs hate crimes" and "education/background & social mobility"). Tellingly, Johnson's "People's government" has rarely counted as many Etonians types.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just seen Cummings being 'doorstepped' by reporters asking him if regrets appointing Sabisky? 

 

Cummings response was to tell reporters to read a book on 'Superforcasters' & ignore political pundits. 

 

A man clearly under pressure despite the faux arrogance in front of cameras. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Baron99 said:

Just seen Cummings being 'doorstepped' by reporters asking him if regrets appointing Sabisky? 

 

Cummings response was to tell reporters to read a book on 'Superforcasters' & ignore political pundits. 

 

A man clearly under pressure despite the faux arrogance in front of cameras. 

I’ve just emailed no. 10 with my application to fill the new ‘super forecaster’ role.

I’ve forecast that Dominic Cummings mid life crisis will culminate in a hostage situation.

None of the forty hospitals will be built.

Brexit will be a total disaster.

Straight Right will win the 3:10 at Newcastle this afternoon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Baron99 said:

Just seen Cummings being 'doorstepped' by reporters asking him if regrets appointing Sabisky? 

 

Cummings response was to tell reporters to read a book on 'Superforcasters' & ignore political pundits. 

 

A man clearly under pressure despite the faux arrogance in front of cameras. 

Cummings is clearly an unpleasant arrogant man. I doubt he feels under pressure at this moment in time. He might have felt under pressure in September and October last year when Mr Johnson was losing every vote in Parliament and the Supreme Court ruled the prorogation of parliament was unlawful. These are golden times for the Conservative party thanks to the 80 seat majority won in December last year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cummings is being called out again for his views on designer babies by experts in the field of genetics and medical ethics.

 

But hey,  “people in this country have had enough of experts”, they obviously prefer weirdos, nutjobs and misfits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, taxman said:

Cummings is being called out again for his views on designer babies by experts in the field of genetics and medical ethics.

 

But hey,  “people in this country have had enough of experts”, they obviously prefer weirdos, nutjobs and misfits.

I’m not sure what he said is that controversial really.


He’s not advocating for designer babies, he’s just saying if it became possible in the future for rich people to pay for designer babies, it should be offered on the NHS to ensure that poor people had the exact same chance and we didn’t see some Time Machine eloi/morlock scenario... 

 

“It is already the case that rich people could use in vitro fertilisation to select the egg which they think will be most advantageous, because they can sequence genomes of multiple eggs and examine each one to look for problems then pick the one they prefer. Once we identify a substantial number of IQ genes, there is no obvious reason why rich people will not select the egg that has the highest prediction for IQ.

 

“This clearly raises many big questions. If the poor cannot do the same, then the rich could quickly embed advantages and society could become not only more unequal but also based on biological classes. One response is that if this sort of thing does become possible, then a national health system should fund everybody to do this. (I.e. it would not mandate such a process but it would give everybody a choice of whether to make use of it.) Once the knowledge exists, it is hard to see what will stop some people making use of it and offering services to – at least – the super-rich.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Robin-H said:

I’m not sure what he said is that controversial really.


He’s not advocating for designer babies, he’s just saying if it became possible in the future for rich people to pay for designer babies, it should be offered on the NHS to ensure that poor people had the exact same chance and we didn’t see some Time Machine eloi/morlock scenario...(...)

Until and unless medical ethics change, it will not. Under current ethics, embryo screening research and practice is all about eradicating defective genes, not enhancing base traits. A point plainly made in the linked article.

 

It's a non-story, there's ample more material to have a justifiable go at Cummings with, than this 6 year-old pseudo-scientific stream of consciousness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, L00b said:

Until and unless medical ethics change, it will not. Under current ethics, embryo screening research and practice is all about eradicating defective genes, not enhancing base traits. A point plainly made in the linked article.

 

It's a non-story, there's ample more material to have a justifiable go at Cummings with, than this 6 year-old pseudo-scientific stream of consciousness.

I agree entirely. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.