>>2317
>Obviously, these views are as absurd as they are unacceptable today,
Society deeming something "unacceptable" shouldn't matter when it comes to science. Science doesn't give a fuck about your societal values.
>Marie Stopes argued forcefully for the compulsory “sterilisation of those unfit for parenthood”.
Maybe I'm a massive bigoted shitlord, but at least giving the genetically ungifted incentives to not breed seems to be worth it in the long run. Even our lord and savior Hotwheels believes this.
At University College London, Galton founded the Eugenics Records Office, which became the Galton Laboratory for National Eugenics. By the time I studied there in the 1990s, it had long since dropped that toxic word to become the Galton Laboratory of the Department of Human Genetics.
Why is the word eugenics "toxic"?
important figures from its history – notably James Watson, co-discoverer of the double helix – express unsupportable racist views.
What views, and how are they unsupportable, besides being "racist"?
Nicholas Wade espoused views about racial differences seemingly backed by genetics. As with Watson, the reaction from geneticists was uniformly dismissive, that he had failed to understand the field, and misrepresented their work.
Of course he got piled. In today's social climate, anything perceived as "racist" is almost always harshly 'criticized' with extreme prejudice, but for the sake of argument, what exactly did he get wrong, besides, of course, being "racist"?
>We now know that the way we talk about race has no scientific validity.
So what you're saying is, the way you talk about race isn't valid, but you still talk about race that way, because…?
>There is no genetic basis that corresponds with any particular group of people, no essentialist DNA for black people or white people or anyone. This is not a hippy ideal, it’s a fact. There are genetic characteristics that associate with certain populations, but none of these is exclusive, nor correspond uniquely with any one group that might fit a racial epithet.
Nobody smart thinks certain genetic characteristics are mutually exclusive to a particular race, just that they're significantly more common in particular races. The MAOA gene is a good example of this.
>Regional adaptations are real, but these tend to express difference within so-called races, not between them.
I'm not following. Are you suggesting that people within a race are more different to each other than to people outside their race? Because that's pretty ridiculous.
>Sickle-cell anaemia affects people of all skin colours because it has evolved where malaria is common.
Again, nobody says that genetic traits and diseases are mutually exclusive (besides obvious things like skin colour and bone shape), just that they're significantly more common in particular races. Why do you think people in the medical field need to know your race? Because it makes it significantly easier to pin point what condition you may have.
>We harvest thousands of human genomes every week. Last month, the UK launched the 100,000 Genomes project to identify genetic bases for many diseases, but within that booty we will also find more of the secret history of our species, our DNA mixed and remixed through endless sex and continuous migration. We are too horny and mobile to have stuck to our own kind for very long.
>our ancestors occasionally mixed hundreds to thousands of years ago, something that even race realists won't deny
>therefore, one race, da hooman raec
>Race doesn’t exist, racism does. But we can now confine it to opinions and not pretend that there might be any scientific validity in bigotry.
>it's not science if it's not nice
>unironically using the word "bigotry"
Now I know for a fact everything you said was emotionally charged.
Stop making the retarded assumption that all race realists must have some sort of irrational hatred towards Blacks because they're willing to acknowledge that on average Africans aren't as smart as Europeans, and that they have an inferiority complex because East Asians are on average smarter than Europeans (in terms of IQ, anyway). Most of us acknowledge that it'd simply be better for everyone if we segregated into our own communities. It's been proven that heterogeneous communities have worse cohesion and trust than homogeneous communities. If your first reaction to that is that "People need to learn (read: be brainwashed) to be more tolerant of other ethnicities." and not "Holy shit this isn't right. These people need their own communities." then I honestly don't know what to say to you.
>lol replying to a five month old post
>implying you can stop a triggered, autistic /pol/ack from sperging out
:^)