Eugenics and Francis Galton: Crash Course History of Science #23

[@crashcourse]

In regards to a common question in the comments: "Why was Eugenics bad/bad science, a terrible idea, etc..." Here are responses from our writer and consultant. Thanks for being curious, y'all! :) Response 1: Super short version, there were a number of serious problems from the jump. For one, eugenics assumed that people are like plants or nonhuman animals: driven primarily by instinct, capable of only so much change in a lifetime-basically, products of “nature,” not “nurture,” as we say in the episode. In fact, the opposite appears to be true about most traits. Most traits also appear to be multifactorial, meaning that, alas, there is not one gene for awesomeness, e.g., but a complex interaction among several regions of the genome, plus nurture. Basically, the eugenicists profoundly oversimplified human genetics. They worked before the modern synthesis, so they literally got the math wrong, but moreover, they reduced human nature to a small number of classical genes, which isn’t accurate. But probably the simplest way in which eugenics was bad science was that the core publications behind the discipline were riddled by *serious* basic errors, as I believe we point out re the Kallikak study and Davenport’s work on race. So, even if eugenics had been “right,” they screwed up or falsified their own research. *** Response 2: I want to be consistent with our assertion from the beginning that people in the past weren’t stupid, and that they were trying to make sense of the world around them. To be fair to the eugenics enthusiasts, we really shouldn’t judge their science based on our modern understanding of genetics because that would contradict the historic perspective that we’ve been trying to argue throughout the series. We also shouldn’t try to say it was bad science from our current moral perspective. However, we are perfectly within our right to say it was bad science based on early 20th century standard best practices of science, which it totally was. (Caveat that eugenics started with some scientists doing sorta legitimate investigations, but as it evolved into a social movement, there was significantly more dubious practitioners & applications of “science” (ie, not really science).) First point of bad science: In a rush to make genetics responsible for everything, there was a clear blurriness between causation and correlation. Eugenics proponents would want to look for traits (such as honest/depravity, frugalness/thrift) & look at family patterns. There might be a very clear hereditary correlation, but that in no way means that a gene is responsible for the trait. There was a jump to a conclusion that skipped the experimental elimination process that is key to the scientific method. Many of the traits that the eugenicists were investigating could actually be disproven through twin studies. Second point of bad science: Germ theory was finally accepted & genetics seemed to be the next frontier, so lots of people jumped on the bandwagon of redefining disease. Conditions like feeblemindedness were now categorized as diseases, which needed to be fixed or eliminated. A hundred years later, we are still discovering what conditions are caused by pathogens, heredity, environment, etc, and we are left with a whole lot of unknowns. Mostly, what we have learned is that it is a lot more complicated than anyone thought. Third point of bad science: Points 1 & 2 weren’t really tested in any kind of sciency way, ie with control groups, repeatable experiments, double blind parameters. Granted, lots of those ideas really solidify over the 20th century (partly in response to the bad science of eugenics), but there was enough of an ethos of best practices that definitely shows this wasn’t rigorous science. Eugenics did a lot of data collection & observation - on their own, good aspects of science - but then used that data to look for correlation patterns. Fourth point of bad science: Eugenicists began conflating poorly defined “scientific” causes, like feeblemindedness (re point 2), with social causes, like poverty or immigration or race, which created a seemingly scientific legitimacy for poorly argued ideas. This gets more at an ethics position that even the early legitimate scientists allowed dubious science to go mainstream.

[@lincolnpepper816]

oof

[@borrr5416]

Nice explanation, give this writer a higher ration of eternal gratitude and coffee

[@Tfin]

Still, at its very root, it was science before it was a movement, and the scientific errors cited don't alter that any more than the bad science done in other areas makes other things "not a science" They got a lot wrong, but that was before anyone had gotten it right. There are so many bad theories out there right now with the "if you think you understand it, you don't" of quantum physics, and the difference is that they don't work on humans. At the end of the day, it was about genetics, and people today just want to separate genetic manipulation from the movement. A movement that, for all the bad, for all the wrong, wanted to make humans better, even when the things they could fix weren't the things they looked at. The whole of it, unlike things like modern astrology, has not been dismissed, and we know there was SOME right in there, we've just changed the name.

[@glennshanley3343]

The writer does explain "Why was Eugenics bad/bad science" But not "Why is Eugenics a terrible idea" Improving what it is to be human by improving the basic human seed sounds like a good idea. That is genetic testing of embryos. Intelligence, like blood group, does have a genetic component. Dwarfism is being selected out of humanity. That seems like eugenics to me.

[@michaelm8460]

It's not eugenics in and of itself, but the ethics backgrounder it's pratice. Just watch what happens when CRISPER goes mainstream.

[@jimfoard5671]

"Those who cannot finish their pasta are doomed to reheat it" George Santiantoni.

[@Elfos64]

Eugenics is still the norm in zoology and agriculture. Most people only really consider it an ethics violation when applied to humans, and even then all breeding is selective in one way or another. Some people would say the line between ethical and unethical selective breeding is drawn on whether freedom is being factored in/out, but there's no such thing as absolute freedom- everything is influenced by external factors to some extent.

[@mattakudesu]

I wish I could understand these concepts, but I'm genetically predisposed to be dumb.

[@evolutionrhythm4416]

That's funny (-:. l'm only genetically developed enough to comprehend that "dumbness" is a anthropocentric concept that's usually reserved as a means to derogate other members of a group in order to elevate one's own status within that group. Of course people do dumb things. Though quite often those actions are being driven by a genetic disposition that was selected for during humanities environment of Evolutionary Adaptations ( the Pleistocene). E.g. Eating yourself into a early grave or participating in very dangerous behaviour because the genes had no foresight that what was rare in the past ( sugar, fat etc) would be so abundant in the present. ( in the past a male willing to risk life whilst hunting could explain why today a highly significant proportion of males ( within any population ) are attracted towards risk taking activity ( far more than the female average) .e.g. Driving fast on race bikes. And why a significant proportion of women are attracted to these dangerous males. Dumb? . Well, we could all be geniuses with hindsight of what consequences are actions course. But the proximate psychology of humans tends to skew a more reactionary behavior rather than a more nuanced reflectively self conscious cost/benefit behavoiur.

[@cheesefries7436]

At least you know.

[@CC-hx8gj]

I mean, you're half black...

[@abrarfaiyaz6503]

But how dumb? Are you a moron, an imbecile or an idiot?

[@tamaracarter1836]

How disgusting and racist some of you people are! Truly sad to see - especially the fact one of these (racist) comments has 27 likes.

[@azertyQ]

This needed a lot more explicit descriptions of how the studies were flawed, since people are still falling into the same traps today.

[@gingercat]

I absolutely agree.

[@ciaphascyne8866]

i thought the same. they technically cover it right in the beginning with one broad stroke when he says something like "before people understood the science of genetics and heredity". a little breakdown on how modern science proves those ideas as incorrect and outdated might stray too far away from the 'history' theme and more into real science.

[@brid101286]

I propose a new scishow video on this topic!!

[@LadCarmichael]

Honestly I think it will probably be talked about when they get into Genetics, explaining it here would be more about talking about the latter than Eugenism in itself.

[@VashdaCrash]

There should be a lot of that in crash course statistics, though they don't specifically talk about this time in history.

[@docterfantazmo]

*Zoologists yesterday:* Yo, limiting the gene pool is a good thing! *Zoologists today:* Yeah, about that...

[@evilotto9200]

*Zoologist tomorrow:* It's called Gene-Editing. Whoot, designer-babies!

[@docterfantazmo]

@@evilotto9200 I want my kid to have 6 arms and a T.Rex head!

[@qbslug]

doctorfantazmo + It depends. A big gene pool is only good when the environment is changing drastically and adaption is needed quickly. Otherwise a big gene pool means a species is not yet well adapted to a particular environment

[@chemp231]

@@qbslug only one problem with your small diversity idea. The world is in a constant state of change naturally, meaning there is always atleast one group with diversity and it opens up other groups more. Its the never ending cycle, like most other things in nature. The species adapts but so does the environment, and it could be counter active to the species.

[@judewakefield7213]

docterfantazmo I want my kid to have six heads and T. rex arms.

[@Frahamen]

Where did Galton came up with Eugenics? me: 4Chan?

[@michaelmaitland3765]

The Greek/Roman/Egyptian/Babylonian/Satanic Nazi Empire.

[@korppi164]

@Jordan Moir What do you mean by better? Do you mean more talented? Or more deserving of wellbeing?

[@reubenmarchant2229]

He only named it. It has been around in one form or another for a long time. Look at royalty. Oh! the horror of marrying outside the given few, LOL.

[@curtiscarpenter9881]

He came up with it in Britain he was born in Birmingham and died in Surrey, look it up on Wikipedia.

[@aaronstinson9479]

"Did came" oops

[@tinycatfriend]

hey Hank! i like how carefully you're tackling this topic. though, just for your assurance, its ok to call people disabled and not just different. of course eugenics targeted a lot of things that weren't disabilities, so the "different" descriptor is still relevant, but you can indeed call disabilities what they are too. using the word disabled is a good thing, i think, because avoiding the word means we think disability is bad when it isn't. i know that's not your intention at all, and you're trying your best to be respectful and as someone with disabilities, i appreciate it a lot.

[@thewrathematician1911]

Being disabled is inherently bad. It's a disadvantaged state based on the inability to function normally. Maybe in extenuating circumstances there could be a scenario were someone disabled would be better off in the moment but these are exceptions that prove the rule.

[@tinycatfriend]

@@thewrathematician1911 i am disabled, just so you understand my perspective. of course disability isn't something to strive for, and leaves people at a disadvantage in society. what i meant with this comment was that avoiding the word disabled contributes to the stigma surrounding it. calling disabled people "just different" can lead people to avoid talking about the negative aspects of it. for example, not providing accommodations to a disabled person who would benefit from them greatly because "they're not DISABLED, they're just different! they don't need help, they can do anything they set their minds to (without our support)!" this may sound like a silly situation to you, but it's sadly common for us.

[@OrchestrationOnline]

Hank, with all respect, you take it for granted that people know why eugenics is bad science. But even if there are countless other videos out there explaining why, you still have to share compelling data here to complete the point. Otherwise, you convince no one who is sympathetic to the more cynical conclusions of that pseudoscience.

[@michaeldove6603]

yeah seems like the same mistake they made in the environmental determinism video. The idea behind Guns, Germs, and Steel has many flaws including cherry picking and ignoring alternative theories and eugenics has many of the same problems, but they both have just enough consistency and actual science behind it that unless the flaws are pointed out many people will just accept them as "facts". I hope they'll do an actual in depth video about it

[@nikolavideomaker]

@@michaeldove6603 enviromental determinism is just a fact by now. Do not compare eugenics with that.

[@minitrumpsaltminingltd4351]

I prefer smart chicks. If a really dumb one get pregnant Im stuck with idiot kids. How is eugenics bad science again?

[@recklessroges]

It seems obvious to me that negative Eugenics is bad for the individual, but I still see no clear explanation for why positive Eugenics won't improve the a species. I agree with OrchestrationOnline: there seems to be a presumption that Eugenics equates to bad. From the information presented it feels logically equivalent to, "because some tyrants liked mango ice-cream, mango ice-cream is evil."

[@frankschneider6156]

MiniTrump Saltmining LTD If it would be that simply, you would be right. The problem is, a) that intelligence is not only a hereditary fact, but to 30% influenced by environmental factors. But more important is b) that intelligence is a massive multigenic trait. Due to crossing-over and the recombination of DNA this means that a child has a completely new combination of factors. The IQ of a child is less determined by the single genes of the parents, but by their combination, which means that if you have smarter or dumber kids is to a large degree pure luck. An interesting side effect is, that kids of "very dumb" people tend to be smarter than their parents, and kids of "very smart" people tend to be "dumber" than their parents. Well for the hereditary part, not for the environmental part that is. Obviously will dumber adults be less able to raise intelligent children than smarter adults, but that's a matter of education not genes and that's why mandatory public schooling is so important. (Being home schooled by uneducated idiots is terrible idea). Thus we have a tendency towards mediocracy, which is why the average IQ is at 100 and stays at 100. Obviously is the idea behind eugenics not completely wrong and to a certain degree you could of course increase the average human IQ using targeted breeding programs, but that's something that most people deem unethical. It's that simple.

[@stevenjlovelace]

Don't Forget To Be Eminent

[@palebluedot7435]

@@somedude3448 hard work ? Lol I doubt it I can train a dog to work hard I can also train a dog to never move out of his bed

[@palebluedot7435]

@@somedude3448 creativity source Intellegence. Maybe but define 50%

[@Ganymedescup]

"Three generations of imbeciles are enough." - Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

[@osmosisjones4912]

Eugenics was Supported mostly by women . Feminist Margaret Sanger

[@halohalo6300]

I am amazed with Dalton's nature versus nurture. And quietly shookt by the fact that these were new theories, i imagined it to be more earlier.

[@DAVIDPIZZANELLI]

I still believe that judging people by merit is a good idea: for example, I think that the best people should get the best jobs, rather than have them awarded by gender, or the color of their skin.

[@daonap]

It's a bad idea, unless you quantify merit and find an objective way of assessing who's better and who's worse. In the best case scenario, we're a long way from these feats. I suspect we cannot reach judgements based on a purely objective evaluation of people's merits, because merits are relative to values, and they do not exist in vacuum - they are socially and culturally constructed.

[@zell863]

It is still happening at free market in capitalism. Only government jobs get useless idiots.

[@emf49]

The most qualified individual should get the job. That should always be the criteria. Who wants a cardiac surgeon who has been hired just because he/she is a minority?

[@orion10x10]

The Good/bad Eugenics idea is exactly like the movie Idiocracy

[@jabbersinc6218]

@@user-A-png i think OP meant (or hope he meant) that if we continue to ignore the theory of natural selection to just "be nice" we're ultimately going to end up like idiocracy

[@chronikhiles]

Positive eugenics actually has a point. It makes good sense to have intelligent people being encouraged to have more kids than those who aren't. This could be done legally or culturally, and it's much more humane than restricting less intelligent people from procreation.

[@RhyminCarly]

Nikhil Krishnan How would we go about encouraging people, legally or culturally?

[@domenicocoviello446]

Culture depend on behaviuor. And behavour is genetic and almost totally indipendent from intelligence. Double mass embryo selection first generation and then things go alone.

[@isaacbakan1295]

The pattern of seeing different races and ethnicities like machines is still very much alive

[@JaimeNyx15]

This will be dated eventually, but: Fracis -> Francis, Crash Course. ^_^

[@crashcourse]

Whoops! Thanks, fixed it :) - Nick J.

[@JaimeNyx15]

No problem!

[@iftisambalindong7381]

Dalton studied the human differences which he differentiate nature and nurture, and traits and behaviours of human from the heredity of their parents. His studies has big contribution in the field of science, especially in the field of psychology for it become a theory to some psychologists. Also some countries are still using his theories in making a law.

[@misterbubbles6389]

We should really call it Social Galtonism as opposed to Social Darwinism

[@fionafiona1146]

Social Davinism was coined before Galton had made a name for him self😊

[@Creativethinker12]

Mister Bubbles The ideas of social Darwinism came from a guy called Herbert Spencer.

[@evolutionrhythm4416]

I agree. It's like if a scientist called Miss Dr Swallow was personally one of the few whom discovered that atoms existed. Then years later the sociopolitical narsistic tribal culture/government she lived in developed a nuclear bomb ( competing against another immoral government) and " honoured" her for helping to achieve it. I.e. Miss Swallow can not be held personally unaccountable for how a culture users the tools developed due to scientifc discovery. That's the majorities shared responsibility. Or in some nations today a minority authoritarian government that is far more immoral than what the country would be under a healthy democracy. And that's backed up by genetic research. I.e. If a morally corrupt minority create a social environment of fear this can contribute towards what l like to term, environmentally induced phenotypical states of fascists. Not the kind of places to take the kids on holdays . In fact the kind of places where the adults like to create hell for their beloved little ones.

[@Mcfirefly2]

How about Social Darwin-Galtonism? Or Social Galton-Darwinism? Or Social Galtonian Darwinism? Seeing that Darwin said the _'unfavored'_ races were doomed to disappear, it ought to be connected to him. Right? Since Darwinism is the rationale for it, and probably the reason that Darwin _must_ "rule", and the animus behind the intolerance shown to all who question it.

[@andyisdead]

Spencerism

[@MyViolador]

We need Eugenics. why? Because I was born.

[@osmosisjones4912]

Of course men ..and supported mostly by white women. . It makes with female choice

[@drmosaddegh]

Osmosis Jones huh?

[@2kmontana]

Hey I think there was a man in 1940's from Germany who believed in eugenics also.

[@brittanygarcia8381]

I watch these videos both for studying and for entertainment. They're even better than Ted talks even

[@ondrejdunder6808]

Who loves CrashCourse? :)

[@crashcourse]

ME! But, I'm biased ;) - Nick J.

[@Senor0Droolcup]

We love crash course!

[@Zeldarw104]

ME- LOVE- crash-course long time!☺

[@jlw35cudvm]

I always look forward to it

[@mohamedal-ganzoury3699]

Who the hell doesn't?

[@joryjones6808]

DFTBE. *Don’t forget to be eminent.

[@jeamilainidal714]

How amazing dalton studied the diferrences between the nature and nurture which we all related in our psychological behaviour. His observations that made discovery is a world wide concept regarding on us, which eventually lead us in understanding our psychology matter. Through him we could answer problems regarding on why this behaviour like this and so on. Dalton is such a brilliant man that made a remarkble discovery.

[@borisdorofeev5602]

Seems like this man offered a great deal to the progress of science during his life, even if some of his ideas are debatable. Advancing fingerprinting, designing various tests, IQ, statistical analysis, social science, psychology, the idea of nature vs nurture, etc. Thanks Crash Course, I'll read up a little more on Francis Galton.

[@dylanross453]

Its funny future Gene editing techniques will basically make this whole thing obsolete

[@TheMrsuperhesoyam1]

It'll be eugenics on the new level

[@drmosaddegh]

i wish those things existed before i was born :(

[@RhyminCarly]

Thank you very much for elaborating. I think this was a very good explanation of the scientific flaws of eugenics, and since science is the subject of this video, that is sufficient. However, I do think that it’s important for everyone watching and commenting on this video to consider more than just the scientific flaws of the eugenics movement. Even if there had been a way to accurately discern that certain patients of sanitariums were “feebleminded,” and would invariably pass on their “feeblemindedness” to their progeny, it would still have been wrong to sterilize them against their will. And that is what the Buck v. Bell decision allowed to be done to thousands of people. I also think it is wrong to pressure a person to reproduce, or to not reproduce, out of fear for the gene pool. A human being is a human being, regardless of intelligence, abilities, illnesses, race, gender, or any other thing. Every human being has a right to exist, even if they seem like a burden to the closed-minded. The eugenics movement had, and continues to have, far-reaching consequences. Consider Puerto Rico, for example; fearing overpopulation, many were encouraged to undergo sterilization. Later, encouragement turned to coercion; some hospitals reportedly refused to deliver a woman’s third child unless she first consented to the sterilization procedure. Today, we encourage the poor to have fewer children. But are our motives purely altruistic, or would we simply prefer to decrease their population, rather than helping them? There are many more examples of modern eugenics. We should be aware of these things, because, like it or not, we will have to decide for ourselves what we think about them someday, and I have a feeling it won’t be easy. I mean, eugenics was widely accepted in the early 1900s, even though we scoff at it now. What are we accepting now that will disgust the future generations?

[@leobat7007]

Why would it be wrong to sterilize people against their will, or to encourage them to either do so or to have less children?

[@RhyminCarly]

@@leobat7007 Hello, sorry to respond a whole year later, but I wanted to answer your question now that I've seen it. There are many reasons why this is wrong, the first being that we believe a person has a right to liberty, and allowing unwanted medical procedures that leave a person sterile are certainly not within the realms of liberty. The first question we have to ask about sterilizing people against their will is, what would "qualify" someone for this unwanted procedure? Would it be only people who do not have the mental capacity to care for another person? Sterilization is permanent, so it would have to be someone who has no hope of ever gaining the capacity to care for a child. The only reason I can think of would be in cases of severe mental disability, in which the person is unable to care for themselves at all. If this were the case, then that person likely could not give consent to sex in the first place. So the problem should not be "how do we make sure this person does not reproduce?" -- It should be "how do we protect this person from sexual abuse?" Other than cases of a person being unable to make the decision for themselves, I cannot think of a situation that would justify permanently taking away a person's freedom to choose whether to have a family. What is the use of having a genetically "superior" human race, if the people born into that race are not free? In addition to all of that, there is one more question we should be asking ourselves. Who are we to decide who has the right to live? That is essentially what we are doing, by interfering with people's ability to reproduce: we are deciding, based solely on the parents' genes, who is worthy of existing. We can't make a decision like that without taking away the value of a human life. Unless we want to say that the disabled are unworthy of life, we cannot decide whether someone should be allowed to reproduce. Anyway, I hope this answers your question, or at least gives something to think about. I'd love to discuss further if you have anything else to say.

[@Delicious_J]

I generally don't agree with eugenics because of the ethics of it. However, I would probably be ok with editing out the genes that cause debilitating, lifelong disabilities as they can affect a person's quality of life.

[@Khemix4]

Hypothetical question... say there is a woman who keeps churning out kids, who she can't possibly take care of. Her many kids grow up in poor circumstances and go to your kids school, where they get involved in drugs and gangs as a result, and possibly drag your own kids into it and disrupting their education. Lastly, her kids depend on the state to take care of them in treating their addictions and subsidized housing further robbing you of your tax dollars. Yet the mother continues to irresponsibly have kids, with different fathers many of whom have criminal records. It's her life, her choice, but her kids are affected, which in turn affects you and your neighbors. What do you do?

[@Khemix4]

@Christopher Stanley What if she is against contraceptives for religious reasons or doesn't tolerate them or is simply irresponsible and doesn't take them consistently? I'm not for forced sterilization, but forced subsidization isn't that good either.

[@Sadin15]

that's a different debate

[@emf49]

I'm okay with that also but the problem is that scientists always seem to take things to the next level - such as creating "designer babies". I'm quite sure there are all sorts of evils going on in labs today. It is in the nature of humankind to want to 'push the envelope'. Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde is an excellent example of that!

[@thomasr.jackson2940]

Thank you for a really important episode in this series. Science is conducted by humans, and it messes up, sometimes spectacularly. Thank you especially for at least mentioning the connection between American scientists and political institutions and the Nazis. As for eugenics being “bad science”, yes and for the reasons you outline on this thread (thank you for that), but it also was respectable science, and carried the panache of coming from scientists (you mentioned Margaret Sanger capitalising on this respectability). It is a reminder that that the truth of science comes from scientific inquiry and methods, things that do not exclusively belong to scientists by any means, and not from the profession or standing of scientists, who are often wrong. Every time some one says “x percentage of scientists agree...”, or “science says... “, it simply misrepresents the true value of science.

[@RhyminCarly]

Thomas R. Jackson Such a good point! Thank you.

[@niajeon6107]

This is the first time that i've heard about eugenics. And i understand why it's not part of science anymore. Imagine not having the freedom of choosing the partner you're gonna be with for the rest of your life just to maintain the characteristics and qualities of genius people. I would literally move to another country if that's the case. Being smart or genius is not everything in this world. I'm actually curious if Galton had a wife and children and to what they think about Galton's eugenics. It did help us understand about human characteristics and even led to the making of IQ tests, but the idea of controlling people who to mate for scientific purposes is a no-no.

[@thetruthsetsyoufree1492]

Being genius can be insane, but unfortunately this is the truth. Eugenics is against the dignity of human rights. Eugenicists wanted to make the world perfect, but then it can unavoidably lead to boredom.

[@oldcowbb]

Galton himself sounds pretty scientifically minded, but as usual, thing gone bad when the idea leaks into the public

[@RhyminCarly]

oldcowbb so true. I also find that the most intelligent among us, when they do make mistakes, tend to make them on a very large scale. Much the same way the fastest cars cause the deadliest accidents.

[@jafarmala8506]

Actually, I am amazed on how Galton studied this kind of science. Indeed, it is really hard to study this one. It stated that he is more interested of the human ability as a hereditary from parents. He really contributed a lot in the field of science and even in psychology, right? So, as he is known as a father of eugenetics. Still, it makes sense on how he deffirentiate nature from nurture. And for him, it has a big possibility that it will produce a good or smart one between a two smart persons to be paired. Si, it makes sense to me becasue it will turn into a good ones from doing good...

[@michaelcola5832]

"evidence...of eminence...in their descendants" i bet that took some time to rehearse lol. Hank is eloquent as always.

[@ResilientBiscuit]

He can’t pronounce “experiment” though ...

[@katelynnehansen8115]

The Green brothers are a gift to humankind! Thank you for dedicating your lives to helping educate others. I love you both and I was so excited after watching Hank for over a decade, to discover this awesomeness runs in the family and his brother, John, was there to refresh my paltry history knowledge. You guys rock!!!

[@joewilson3393]

I would suggest an alternate title of this episode of "How bad science can change the world."

[@ManfredDudesonVonGuy]

I see that we're getting closer and closer to the modern era, so i thought I'd leave a comment I've been thinking about since episode 14. I hope that you do an episode on Scientific Skepticism. This is not being skeptical of science; quite the opposite. It's rather complicated to really describe, but the basic tenants are these: 1. Accept methodological naturalism, the idea that there is nothing that happens in the universe that is not the result of matter, energy, and natural processes interacting (this is the foundation is science as whole, since supernatural occurrences are either natural by definition or defy explanation) 2. No knowledge however derived is absolute, but knowledge may be established to the point where denying it is unreasonable. 3. Logic founded on clear and correct premises without flaws always leads to a correct answer (this is the hardest bit in my opinion). 4.. One must always be open to new information and the possibility that one is incorrect. 5. Embrace what Dr. Stephen Novella calls "neuropsychological humilty" which in short is the notion that your reality is an imperfect construction made by your brain based on streamlined data, heuristics, patterns from your past, and a very fallible memory. I highly recommend the new book The Skeptic's Guide to the Universe (yes a Douglas Adams reference, the authors are all huge nerds), which is a great primer.

[@placidhead1]

Isn't mate selection a naturally eugenic process? "This person's face is asymmetrical, I think I'll pass."? Sperm banks have height requirements. Whether they should or not isn't a matter of science, but ethics.

[@secularprolife]

Glad to see Crash Course cover Margaret Sanger, but you left out a key fact. Her American Birth Control League later changed its name; it is now Planned Parenthood. Every year, Planned Parenthood gives out an award in her honor.

[@secularprolife]

Way to demonstrate my point, bro.

[@michaelm8460]

I'm not sure why PP wants Sanger to be considered their founder. She was just one person on the ABL board and there were several similar organizations in NYC at the time. She left after 9 years and the ABL merged with some of the other organizations. It was more than 30 yrs after her departure that the organization that started as the ABL was renamed Planned Parenthood. There must have been many others in that time that contributed as much as she had for the organization to thrive all these years.

[@vincentknws]

@@utvara1 I guess it's a good thing that the black population is being killed off in america according to you.

[@utvara1]

@@vincentknws I did not mention any race only impulsive ghetto dwellers... you interpreted that as black. Now if I was a leftard I would call that racist but I guess its just pattern recognition based on some personal and anecdotal evidence.

[@vincentknws]

@@utvara1 you reffered to the ghetto. Which is mainly black. Also you're supporting planned parenthood, which does kill off the majority of the black population, it's also kills off more females than males. Which was my point, not exactly your comment.

[@culwin]

For humans in the modern industrial world, the money (and how the family uses that money) you're born into is the biggest factor over genetics or anything else. It's possible but hard to move up the ladder - it's real easy to go down.

[@nathanielhellerstein5871]

"The High Race is being outbred by inferior races"?? And the ones who said that called themselves Darwinians? In Darwinian terms, the very _definition_ of a superior race is the one that outbreeds the other!

[@randomPerson-gl1zh]

Wez waz kings n shiet

[@antoniogutierrez5344]

Cockroaches will outlive humanity

[@chriss619]

@@antoniogutierrez5344 does that make them superior? you decide

[@zacharyfelder6604]

@@chriss619 yes

[@yichengwang347]

@@chriss619 well, according to the original definition, unfortunitely, yes.

[@michaelm8460]

Thomas Jefferson mentions applying eugenics practices on his slaves in his book 'Notes on Virginia', making eugenics parts of this countries founding principles.

[@yeat7264]

*cough* "the great replacement" *cough*

[@davidcopperfield2278]

stop coughing ! speak clearly

[@youfreego]

00:24 02:52 03:51 05:39 08:27 08:32 09:19

[@robinchesterfield42]

LADY FOPPINGTON: (pops out of the doorway with harpsichord music) "But what about the SKULLS?!!" HANK: We're already past that! FOPPINGTON: Oh... (sadly fades out of the room)

[@vigilantsycamore8750]

That graphic at 4:25 reminds me of Orphan Black... which is fitting considering the themes and plot of that show is basically a comprehensive argument against social Darwinism

[@Adamantium9001]

You missed the most important point: even if eugenics _was_ good science, it would still be bad ethics.

[@RhyminCarly]

Adamantium9001 hear hear!

[@jjtimmins1203]

It doesn't have to be. We could just pay people cash to be temporarily sterilized with IUDs for example. It would void abortions and accidental pregos.

[@kervensjasmin1508]

@@jjtimmins1203 bad ethics

[@ricplay7890]

Well said

[@b_f_d_d]

That's true

[@DanOgburn]

Funny how this video conveniently omitted the moden name of Margaret Sangers organization: Plannned Parenthood and how eugenics was a hallmark of the progressive movement.

[@buithanh8519]

What a thorough explanation! Thank you for this video

[@intravenousdmt8977]

Eugenics isn’t inherently a terrible idea, forcing people to participate in it is.

[@holmesss01]

Every time I see either of the Green brothers my day is immediately made better :)

[@crashcourse]

Same :D - Nick J.

[@jimboslice7862]

How about we limit eugenics to Crusader Kings 2, it seems to work just fine there

[@DuhThyHiTickler]

I honestly don’t see an issue with the logic here. If you minus all the bad stuff, and only focusing on the idea of high test takers mating other high test takers, eventually you will get kids who are smarter then average. I’m not a scientist so I don’t actually know the reality of the situation but I know that’s how breeding works. Desirable traits are passed onto the next generation until you get a dog who points at a bird. This works in all animals; Humans are animals, so it will work with humans. But again I haven’t done any research, just on the surface I’m saying it makes sense. If there’s someone who knows more about the subject please weigh in here.

[@obchoeiikamin5013]

Thank you very much. You have given a very deep history on eugenics.

[@KonsciousKomedyKay]

I love how certain people HAVE to know everything and HAVE to have stats and perfect people... Control at it's finest ❤️❤️❤️

[@raha5527]

I know that eugenics is bad and unethical and that it has caused many horrible episodes in history but I would like to know the scientific reasoning of why it is incorrect. I don't consider myself as exceptionally smart plus I am nearsighted, so I have always wondered if it was a good idea for me to reproduce since the competition over jobs due to automation is probably going to get tougher and tougher and if my offspring isn't smart or creative enough she/he wouldn't be able to survive🤔

[@stuartm2476]

To say that there is no scientific merit behind the idea that it could be possible to breed out, at least some, undesirable traits & promote desirable traits in humans through selective breeding is nothing short of denial. Just because there are ethical questions as to who decides what is desirable does not make the theory non-science. It sometimes amazes me just how close minded the scientific community can be.

[@jamiedorsey4167]

1. Is studying what makes people different creepy? It seems very useful to understand that some people are smarter and more capable at certain tasks than others. If we don't understand IQ, we might just expect everyone to be able to comprehend high level math or be able to train to become surgeons. Or we might think it is just as good to hire a sociopath to teach children as it would be to hire a highly empathic person. Just because some people use scientific knowledge of human differences to promote discrimination or tribalism doesn't really mean it isn't helpful in a positive way too, like most all of science. 2. Evolutionary biology vs social constructionism is basically the new nature v nurture debate but somehow in the politicization of these ideas many of us have forgot that its pretty well agreed upon that it is both.

[@Dwight_]

Where in the video did he say the first part? That's very ignorant of him

[@DennisBratland]

This is why the Darwin Awards needs to be renamed the Galton Awards. Darwin was not down with that attitude, because he thought every human being had inherent, intangible value, even if they did a dumb thing once, or even all the time, but Galton was all for it.

[@hermengild3776]

Eugenics never went away just changed its name 😂😂😂

[@christofl6523]

This video does not debunk the usefulness of eugenics only tells the history.

[@SullyBach]

Eugenics? Like aborting babies because they have genetic markers for certain conditions or are the wrong sex? This is totally going on in world today.

[@TheMonkeyZombie]

You fail to mention that Margret Sanger classified the Blacks as a whole to be both "undesirables" and "unfit"

[@austinsmith538]

I'll bet 10 bucks that Francis Galton is Lady Foppington's great, great grandfather.

[@recklessroges]

(ISWYDT) I think she is his 3rd cousin once removed *and* his aunt.

[@rebekahcastro5430]

Idk they might have been contemporaries haha

[@phaedrussmith1949]

The problem with eugenics is subtly described in its very discussion. The question that develops is binary: (a) what is “better” and, (b) who will then decide what is “better.” Once we arrive at those answers, they invoke some deeply disturbing follow up questions. In the world in which we currently live the answer to the primary questions are as follows: (a) those who have the most and therefore reap the “rewards” of possessing the most money in a money-scheme based economic order, and (b) those who have the most, and have therefore reaped the power of having the most money in a money-scheme based economic order. For those of us in the great, unwashed masses the myriad of disturbing follow up questions are up to the individual imagination. Beyond that, and as a pragmatic matter for those who will make the determination of who will live and who will die, who will be allowed to breed and who will not (e.g. the wealthy and powerful who are going to be deciding how the human species should be bred to most resemble their “success”) a troubling question also arises: how will they remain so wealthy and powerful as it is the blind consumerism of those they wish to cull that creates their wealth in the money-scheme economy, and those same lives that are used to create the labor that produces the goods and services that are sold. Plus, if we are gone, who’s going to clean their toilets and lanscape their mansions? But what could possibly go wrong, it’s science, amirite!!!

[@EvansRowan123]

"Hurr durr genetics isn't real there is only class struggle"

[@phaedrussmith1949]

"Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires." John Steinbeck A new version of this quote would need to be filtered through the forced inculcation of the new neo-liberal standard of economic thought which rules the day, and therefore explain that the poor have simply accepted their lot in life, shamed into agreement by noting that they must simply be lazy, dumb or make poor decisions, otherwise they, too, would be among the money-rich elite. That’s why they have the billions and billions of dollars representing the labor of the people and we don’t, amirite again!! It’s the Divine Right of Kings. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

[@neilbeni7744]

Awesome explanation!

[@zbs2363]

And soon will crisper rule

[@Hanno___]

Galton like Shakespeare's …obsessed with twins😮

[@arcadecaptainYT]

Can’t wait for crash course eugenics it’s gonna be lit

[@exist888]

A whole video about Eugenics but not a mention of the word racism

[@julieminnaar02]

Thank you for this video, it has helped me so much

[@coralee5628]

Forced sterilization was still happening in California prisons until... 2014!? I'm gonna puke...

[@AbbeyRoadkill1]

There are a lot of effed-up laws from the 19th & early 20th centuries still on the books in America. Not the least of which is the legal conclusion that corporations are people.

[@micahw83]

That's one of the side effects.

[@balisong46]

Forced sterilization was banned in 1979 but shiesty stuff was still happening till 2014 when even elective procedures were also banned.

[@CamelDance]

Kavenaugh would approve. No, seriously, he approves of conducting invasive procedures on people who are legally unable to consent without even making an attempt to find out their wishes and take them into account.

[@rentan8010]

I wonder if Galton's work is what inspired the atrocities by Mengele during the 40s.

[@thomasswedlund1097]

Though you tiptoe around the connection between Darwinism and the evil that followed, your research is useful.

[@brenda0006]

Lol Galton is basically the real world equivalent of a bigoted pure blood wizard, who thinks that if the pure blood families mingle too much with muggles or muggle borns then they will be less powerful (eminent). He is essentially Lucius Malfoy.

[@emf49]

You and Ben Shapiro should have a 'speed talking contest'!! 😉

[@balamstudios]

Yes, those studies were flawed, and misogyny and racism are a big problem. If you would base the model in a general way then you could still use eugenics as a way to improve the general health of the population by culling deceases and malformations until we find viable cures. In a species where natural selection hardly operates anymore, we require an implemented solution for such ailments. As for sterilization...well, iit would help on a bunch of problems but would be quite dystopian.

[@gardenhead92]

Galton predicted Idiocracy

[@jred7]

How did Margaret Sanger influence Wonder Woman? Also when was the most recent forced sterilization in the state of California?

[@charleschong7362]

Should have mentioned Sanger started Planned Parenthood.

[@HowFearless]

The best teaching program Thanks for making this a thing😁😁😁

[@l.m.p.t.8645]

What a difference there is between historical crash course science and mr. ‘not funny jokes’ from the American history videos.

[@javierperalta7648]

I don't think it's a terrible idea

[@SeamusCampbell89]

Considering the Nerdfighteria slogan is "Don't forget to be awesome," my mind has been blown.

[@naipahmamao3988]

Now, I think this is the kind of theory that everyone must be against of. Darwin did not study evolution to control or reshape it. He did it because he just wanted to know what is. However, Scientists that modified Darwin and Wallace’s (I think we should also give credit to Wallace rather than giving it all to Darwin) study, create new theories with the vision that over-all, deviates from the path of these two scientists. Eugenics, a term that is so scary. Defying human rights for the great race. Well, maybe Galton did not directly told us to stop or make some “kind” of human extinct. But he certainly think that the people should control the growth of “not that smart” type of people and increase the growth of merit one. Surely, it is the reasons of discrimination. He did not want these things to happen and also, he is not the first one to think of it but he still gave an idea about it and even a strong one because obviously, he is a smart guy and he was able to influence people even the state of America, where they had a law about sterilization of people with “different abilities” and those who were incarcerated. Now, this is surely against religion but was still able to gain much attention from the people. Galton’s discovery both had a negative and positive effect on people. The positive one is that he was able to invent things that are needed for quantifying a person’s ability such as the senses, mind, and bodies.

[@skylight6820]

Francis Galton and a few others decided natural selection could be used to make the human race "better" and came up with Eugenics. Eugenics is the science of improving a human population by controlled breeding to increase the occurrence of desirable heritable characteristics. This a method of improving the human race that developed by Francis Galton. Historically, eugenicists advocated selective breeding to achieve these goals. Today we have technologies that make it possible to more directly alter the genetic composition of an individual.

[@norhaifahbanyamen4560]

Nature and nurture, I think this two affects human because if we grew good we might be a bad person because of the nature or because of the people aroud us. Even the scientist studied human they still used a math formula. They are amazing. Galton and his cousin darwin must really a good relatives because galton develop what he discovered. I thought that birth control is a new strategy to minimize babies but it's not and margaret sangen is the one who introduced thiss birth control. It's also interesting! In order for us to avoid abortion we shoulf know about this birth control of ms. Margaret.

[@fatmahsumayyahlangco7971]

Thanks to Galton, Who's father of Eugienics. Galton was not scholar unlike his cousin Darwin and he never did well in school. But like his cousin he studying about how traits passed down to next generation. But the different is he studying with unique method, like how he introduce to us what is nature vs nurture. Unfortunately this eugienics had been recognize as a bad science in 1920's. But the good thing was still exist and very much alive even today, even though its recognize as a bad science.

[@markrayparcutilo5329]

Eugenics defined as the science of improving racial stock, was developed from a new hereditary theory conceived by Francis Galton himself and from the evolution theory of Charles Darwin, transposed to human society. This two cousin differ on their experiment target, Darwin's theory was based on experiments of monkeys and barnacles while Galton' eugenics was based on experiments of human beings. I think that day, experimenting human being might be unusual compared today but it this way, it offers a lot of knowledge and discoveries. Galton put particular emphasis on positive eugenics. Galton's discovery was made as a starting point in the development in the field of eugenics.

[@klintianquilonalalim7774]

Organisms most important characteristic must be biological rather than by environmental or experienced. Galton argued this with everyone for he believed that everything is hereditary form genes, traits and even the personality of a person. A person is not shaped by his environment but rather what a parents are, the child’s behavior and outer self is also the same.

[@moribundmurdoch]

I would love "A Whole Creepy Spinoff Show" albeit, it might make me sickly...like watching that one movie "The Forest of Love"..o' my gosh that one was too much for me.

[@deviousxen]

That was brought together REALLY well and now I think I know why Mengele had an obsession with twins... Mind=blown

[@deviousxen]

Oh my goodness my bones went cold.

[@jolevy4569]

To me, a mathematician, the bad science and feeblemindedness seems to be on your side. They were trying to categorize human attributes and made great strides, whereas your argument starts by calling it bad science without giving detailed examples, and using the words trouble and creepy sufficiently to convert other feeble minds. Putting your morality above evidence is not science.

[@mathieuleader8601]

Katō Shidzue one of the first Japanese women to be elected to the Diet & the upper house known as the House of Councillors Katō was the first women to campaign for office in Japan, campaigning under a Socialist platform with and emphasis on American-style democracy. In 1946, Shidzue Katō was elected to the Japanese Diet. Her campaign platform was based on family planning and improving the economic prospects of women. In 1946 she wrote concerning the link between the birth control movement and Japanese democracy: Giving birth to many, and letting many die-repeating such an unwise way of life for Japanese women will result in exhaustion of the maternal body, as well as mental damage and material loss for the family.… Without the liberation and improvement of women, it is impossible to build democracy in Japan. Although Katō was initially hopeful of women's growing political role, she was soon marginalized in the mostly male Diet. Despite this, she looked for other ways to achieve her political reforms. In 1946 she was instrumental in organizing the first "women only" rally in Tokyo. This rally protested for greater economic resources for women.

[@ioan_jivan]

So this guy pioneered like most of psychology studying and even the most used forensics technique, but is remembered for eugenics :(

[@WinaM2]

Thanks, I really needed this summary for my history class.

[@chrisfrench2118]

Left a comment, it immediately dissapeared

[@EpicProductions121]

“The stronger must dominate and not mate with the weaker, which would signify the sacrifice of its own higher nature. Only the born weakling can look upon this principle as cruel, and if he does so it is merely because he is of a feebler nature and narrower mind; for if such a law did not direct the process of evolution then the higher development of organic life would not be conceivable at all.” Change my mind

[@EvansRowan123]

Women are weaker than men, so unless you take out the "not" from that first sentence then it's all wrong and also extremely gay.

[@RhyminCarly]

“Only the born weakling can look upon this principle as cruel”. Obviously, this statement is meant to be self-proving, because whoever disagrees can then be considered “of a feebler nature and narrower mind” and therefore the opinion is useless. Ever read “The Emperor’s New Clothes”? If your argument is based on evolution, then why do you think humans need to help it along in this way, while animals simply reproduce with whomever their instincts tell them to mate with? Sure, they sometimes make “mistakes,” as it were, but those mistakes are naturally corrected over time. Two “strong” parents very often do not produce “strong” children. Some studies have found that parents with diverse genes (that is, parents with fewer genes in common) are more likely to produce tall, intelligent offspring. It’s the same principle as not marrying your cousin. If we slowly get rid of genetic diversity, pretty soon people will be reproducing with those who are genetically similar to them, like inbreeding.

[@SaleemSirYT]

WHAT A AMAZING INFORMATION THAK YOU VERY MUCH SIR

[@SonarSystemsCoUk]

Hey, it would be awesome if you could post the titles/links of the books referenced in the videos.

[@eloujtimereaver4504]

Eugenics is how we have dogs. Positive eugenics sounds like a good idea to me, negative eugenics is where the problem lies. Additionally, while our understanding of genetics is much greater now, that does not invalidate the original hypothesis, that things are heritable and we should leverage that. Now we have the ability to not only leverage it, but also modify it with gene editing. So just like Miasma theory Eugenics is not 'bad science' they have just been labelled so by unrelated political tides. Something we should not allow in the sciences. Where would we be if physics and engineering had been similarly disregarded? Not where we are today that is for sure. As we learn more we need to use that to update models that were flawed, not abandon the entire concept. Also, the way we use fingerprints in the modern world is entirely unreliable and has disastrous consequences.

[@NorthernAaronPB]

Yes you may call these rule creepy but simple history seems to just avoid mentioning the practicality of eugenics ? And the fact that it works.

[@matthewmuller7429]

This sounds like the ideas that lead to the split of the triplets in 'Three identical Strangers' and many other unfortunate twins that were seperated at infancy by adoption agencies.

[@oh_rhythm]

You have to be blind to not see that, in general, different ethnicities have tenancies towards certain behaviors. Like..... Seriously

[@ironfortitude9817]

Decades of Marxist brainwashing. They have to keep up the facade/lie. Eugenics would work because it works with animals (... and humans are animals). The only thing these science deniers are doing is causing more suffering and harm in the long run.

[@Khemix4]

They're not blind. The last thing they want is a strong and healthy population which is harder to enslave and control. They want to monopolize competence for themselves while the masses languish for them in confusion.

[@laurensahanna5826]

Actually there isn't, most behaviours of different ethnic groups often boils down to culture, socio-economic position and their living conditions. To say that difference behaviours of ethnic groups are attributed to genetics is either racist, outdated psuedo-science or a combination of both

[@GingerGingie]

Juuuuuust a couple of sound foams would make a huge difference here.