Iâd say an obvious difference is that EA family planning orgs arenât doing permanent sterilization.
Iâd also say that the reason Thorstad is upset is probably mostly because he sees Scottâs support for the org as âletâs get rid of drug addicts children from the next generation because they have bad genesâ, and-rightly in my view-worries that this is the sort of logic that the Nazis used to justify genocide of the âwrong sortâ of people, and that if HBD becomes widely believed people might turn this logic against Black people. Scott could (and would) reasonably protest that there is a big difference between being prepared to use violence for eugenic goals, and merely incentivizing people towards them in non-coerceive ways. But if you apply this to race rather than drug addicts âwe should try and make there be less Black people, non-coercivelyâ is still Nazi and awful.
This sort of eugenic reasoning doesnât actually seem to be whatâs going on with Project Prevention itself, incidentally. From the Guardian article, it seems like the founder genuinely values the children of drug addicts as human beings, given she adopted them and is just trying to stop them being hurt. From that point of view, Iâd say she is probably a bit confused though: itâs not clear most children of addicts have lives that are worse than nothing, even though they will be worse than average. So itâs not clear it actually helps them to prevent them being born.
I agree with your comment about Scottâs support for the org, but I think he unnecessarily sullies and misrepresents the org along the way. Why not just explain what the org does and then tell about Alexanderâs response to it, as the focus is on Alexander.
Like your say regardless of what you think about the orgs methods, they arenât an org which has eugenic intentions and shouldnât be tarred by that brush in the article.
Again to say I probably donât agree with what the org does, but have a lot of compassion for her founder because she has genuinely given much of her life towards looking after children others donât want, and this org came out of trying to solve that issue.
Iâd say an obvious difference is that EA family planning orgs arenât doing permanent sterilization.
Iâd also say that the reason Thorstad is upset is probably mostly because he sees Scottâs support for the org as âletâs get rid of drug addicts children from the next generation because they have bad genesâ, and-rightly in my view-worries that this is the sort of logic that the Nazis used to justify genocide of the âwrong sortâ of people, and that if HBD becomes widely believed people might turn this logic against Black people. Scott could (and would) reasonably protest that there is a big difference between being prepared to use violence for eugenic goals, and merely incentivizing people towards them in non-coerceive ways. But if you apply this to race rather than drug addicts âwe should try and make there be less Black people, non-coercivelyâ is still Nazi and awful.
This sort of eugenic reasoning doesnât actually seem to be whatâs going on with Project Prevention itself, incidentally. From the Guardian article, it seems like the founder genuinely values the children of drug addicts as human beings, given she adopted them and is just trying to stop them being hurt. From that point of view, Iâd say she is probably a bit confused though: itâs not clear most children of addicts have lives that are worse than nothing, even though they will be worse than average. So itâs not clear it actually helps them to prevent them being born.
I agree with your comment about Scottâs support for the org, but I think he unnecessarily sullies and misrepresents the org along the way. Why not just explain what the org does and then tell about Alexanderâs response to it, as the focus is on Alexander.
Like your say regardless of what you think about the orgs methods, they arenât an org which has eugenic intentions and shouldnât be tarred by that brush in the article.
Again to say I probably donât agree with what the org does, but have a lot of compassion for her founder because she has genuinely given much of her life towards looking after children others donât want, and this org came out of trying to solve that issue.