We all know that eugenics is problematic for ideological & political reasons. This is why the Eugenics Institute changed it's name to the Galton Institute: because eugenics is bad PR. But it is important to note that eugenics is seriously problematic on scientific grounds: it is based on basic misapprehensions of evolutionary theory which remain widespread. For example, many textbooks to this day cite the example of peppered moths (Biston betularia), which adapted to the sooty environment produced by the coal smoke of the industrial revolution by becoming black, such that to this day there exist black varieties of the pepper moth in Northern England; this is presented as evidence of Darwinian evolutionary selection, despite the fact that it demonstrates adaptation, NOT evolution: these moths are still pepped moths, they have not evolved, they have simply adapted (& are arguably no longer adapted to their relatively soot free environment today). Citing the peppered moth in this way is a textbook conflation, which presumes that because a phenomena well known from selective breeding (i.e., the selection of particular traits through controlled breeding) can be found "in nature," this proves that it is an "evolutionary" phenomena, which it does not. Another key distortion built into eugenics is the conflation of "race" (or nation, or population) with species. Eugenics theory posits race as analogous to species in a deeply misleading way, by suggesting that evolution occurs at the level of races within the species. We're all familiar with the way this notion lead to ideologically motivated racial dehumanization of groups in various contexts (e.g., blacks in the US, Jews in Nazi Germany). But this notion is also scientifically invalid: evolution occurs among species, not races, or any other sub-species groupings. The idea that it could is still a category error, whether it's called eugenics or transhumanism.
We all know that eugenics is problematic for ideological & political reasons. This is why the Eugenics Institute changed it's name to the Galton Institute: because eugenics is bad PR. But it is important to note that eugenics is seriously problematic on scientific grounds: it is based on basic misapprehensions of evolutionary theory which remain widespread. For example, many textbooks to this day cite the example of peppered moths (Biston betularia), which adapted to the sooty environment produced by the coal smoke of the industrial revolution by becoming black, such that to this day there exist black varieties of the pepper moth in Northern England; this is presented as evidence of Darwinian evolutionary selection, despite the fact that it demonstrates adaptation, NOT evolution: these moths are still pepped moths, they have not evolved, they have simply adapted (& are arguably no longer adapted to their relatively soot free environment today). Citing the peppered moth in this way is a textbook conflation, which presumes that because a phenomena well known from selective breeding (i.e., the selection of particular traits through controlled breeding) can be found "in nature," this proves that it is an "evolutionary" phenomena, which it does not. Another key distortion built into eugenics is the conflation of "race" (or nation, or population) with species. Eugenics theory posits race as analogous to species in a deeply misleading way, by suggesting that evolution occurs at the level of races within the species. We're all familiar with the way this notion lead to ideologically motivated racial dehumanization of groups in various contexts (e.g., blacks in the US, Jews in Nazi Germany). But this notion is also scientifically invalid: evolution occurs among species, not races, or any other sub-species groupings. The idea that it could is still a category error, whether it's called eugenics or transhumanism.
Thank you for correctly attributing the Attali quote to the interview with Salomon rather than Attali’s book.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PsCkqku7c7A&ab_channel=MichaelElston