Skip to main content

Alarming that no one has pointed out what Margaret Sanger said in her address to the Sixth International Neo-Malthusian & Birth Control Conference

...the Government of the United States deliberately encourages and even makes necessary by its laws the breeding--with a breakneck rapidity -- of idiots, defectives, diseased, feeble-minded and criminal classes.
Billions of dollars are expended by our state and federal governments and by private charities and philanthropies for the care, the maintenance, and the perpetuation of these classes Year by year their numbers are mounting.  Year by year more money is expended.  The American public is taxed--heavily taxed--to maintain an increasing race of morons which threatens the very foundations of our civilization.  More than one-quarter of the total incomes of our States is spent upon the maintenance of asylums, prisons and other institutions for the care of the defective, the diseased and the delinquent.  Do not conclude, however, that all of our feeble-minded and mentally defective are segregated in institutions.  No, indeed.  This is a free country, a democratic country, a country of universal suffrage.  We can all vote, even the mentally arrested.  And so it is no surprise to find the moron's vote as good as the vote of the genius.  The outlook is not a cheerful one.
  You, friends from foreign countries who have come here to our greatest city, must have noticed the intricate system of signals which regulates the crowded traffic in our streets and thoroughfares.  By this system, the pedestrian is assured some degree of safety.  But while the congestion of American population in our cities has forced upon us a system to regulate traffic in city streets and country roads, America as a nation refuses to open her eyes to the problem of biological traffic and racial roads.  Biologically, this country is joy-riding" with reckless carelessness to an inevitable smash-up.  It is too late to prevent national destruction?  This question we must face--and answer.
  France is making a vain attempt to increase her population by awarding bonuses to those parents who will produce large families.  The day is here when the Government of the United States should award bonuses to discourage large families.  If the United States government were to expend some of its vast appropriations on a system of bonuses to decrease or restrict the incessant and uninterrupted advent of the hordes of the unfit, we might look forward to the future of this country with less pessimism.  If the millions upon millions of dollars which are now expended in the care and maintenance of those who in all kindness should never have been brought into this world were converted to a system of bonuses to unfit parents, paying them to refrain from further parenthood, and continuing to pay them while they controlled their procreative faculties, this would not only be a profitable investment, but the salvation of American civilization.  If we could, by such a system of awards or bribes or whatever you choose to call it, discourage the reproduction of the obviously unfit, we should be lightening the economic and social burden now hindering the progress of the fit, and taking the first sensible step toward teh solution of the most menacing problems of the American democracy.

This published in the Birth Control Review Vol. IX April, 1925, no. 43

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Dembski's "specified compexity" semiotics and teleology (both ad intra and ad extra)

Integral to Dembski's idea of specified complexity (SC) is the notion that something extrinsic to evolution is the source of the specification in how it develops. He compares SC to the message sent by space aliens in the movie "Contact." In that movie, earthbound scientists determine that radio waves originating in from somewhere in our galaxy are actually a signal being sent by space aliens. The scientists determine that these waves are a signal is the fact that they indicate prime numbers in a way that a random occurrence would not. What is interesting to me is the fact that Dembski relies upon an analogy with a sign rather than a machine. Like a machine, signs are produced by an intelligent being for the sake of something beyond themselves. Machines, if you will, have a meaning. Signs, if you will, produce knowledge. But the meaning/knowledge is in both cases something other than the machine/sign itself. Both signs and machines are purposeful or teleological

continuing the discussion with Tim in a new post

Hi Tim, I am posting my reply here, because the great blogmeister won't let me put it all in a comment. Me thinks I get your point: is it that we can name and chimps can't, so therefore we are of greater value than chimps? Naming is something above and beyond what a chimp can do, right? In other words, you are illustrating the point I am making (if I catch your drift). My argument is only a sketch, but I think adding the ability to name names, as it were, is still not enough to make the argument seem cogent. For one can still ask why we prefer being able to name over other skills had by animals but not by humans. The objector would demand a more convincing reason. The answer I have in mind is, to put it briefly, that there is something infinite about human beings in comparison with the subhuman. That "something" has to do with our ability to think of the meaning of the cosmos. Whereas one might say"He's got the whole world in His han

particular/universal event/rule

While listening to a recorded lecture on Quine's Two Dogmas of Empiricism, it occurred to me that every rule is in a way, a fact about the world. Think about baseball: from the p.o.v. of an individual player, a baseball rule is not a thing but a guide for acting and interpreting the actions of others.  But this rule, like the action it guides, is part of a concrete individual --i.e., part of an institution that has come into existence at a particular place and time, has endured and  may eventually go out of existence.  The baseball rule, as a feature of that individual, is likewise individual.  The term "baseball rule," on the one hand, links us to a unique cultural event; it can, on the other hand, name a certain type of being.  In this way, it transgresses the boundary between proper and common noun. If there were no such overlap, then we might be tempted to divide our ontology between a bunch of facts "out there" and a bunch of common nouns "in here.&qu