Talk:Euthenics

dysgenics

Many things that are euthenic are also dysgenic.

That sounds awful, why? Also this article presents Euthenics as being in contrtast to eugenics. Why wouldn't they be done in harmony? Sam Spade 19:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

1. The idea is presumably that helping individuals to overcome disabilities is likely to have an adverse effect on the species — as, for example, providing glasses means that people with poor eyesight are able to pass on their genes; if we prevented such people from reproducing, the effect would (might) be to remove the relevant genes from the population.
2. The sources at which I looked (and from which I got the parts that I contributed) all presented the two as being in opposition. Someone might, of course, hold eugenics views in some areas and euthenics views in others. In the example above (and those in the text), though, there seems to be a clear disagreement between the two views.
3. I'm not really convinced that Eudaimonia is an appropriate "see also"; what did you have in mind? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

My thought is this: The nazi's promoted education and social services for those they saw as Übermensch. Wouldn't their program be a combination of Eugenics and Euthenics, or am I misunderstanding the concept? This article is the first I've heard of it... Sam Spade 19:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm doing some research... Euthenics: The Science of Controllable Environment : A Plea for Better Conditions As a First Step Toward Higher Human Efficiency (Public health in America) by Ellen H. Richards, ISBN 0405098278 seems to be backing up my assumptions, from what I skimmed. More to come... Sam Spade 20:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

From article

The result of the euthenics approach would thus have long-term, genetic effects, but would achieve them very differently from eugenics.

Many who support eugenics believe that euthenics is ultimately pointless, or at least less effective than eugenics, because it deals with the consequences of a problem rather than the problem itself. Those who support euthenics argue that eugenic approaches work by taking choices – and especially reproductive choices – away from people, while euthenics allows people to make better-informed decisions, as in the example of genetic diseases.

I am fairly certaion this is incorrect. Is there a source for this? Is this the sort of reasoning presented in the Encyclopedia of Anthropology? Sam Spade 20:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Information I found here seems to corroberate the above, so I restored it. Cites of specific critics would still be cool, but I no longer request them so stringently. Sam Spade 21:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I took it all (paraphrased, of course) from the Enc. of A., though the Web sources I looked at confirmed it. Specific critics weren't mentioned, unfortunately. If I come across any on the Web or elsewhere I'll add them. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm very curious who criticised her theory, and why. Ellen Richards is awesome, personally coining the terms euthenics, ecology, home economics and Oekology, the first woman to graduate and teach at MIT, and etc... I only first heard of her today, and she's already my favorite feminist! ;) Sam Spade 23:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

They probably criticized her because she didn't call it "LIBERAL Euthenics".Danshawen 04:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Pasteur quote

I got that from the first page of Euthenics: The Science of Controllable Environment : A Plea for Better Conditions As a First Step Toward Higher Human Efficiency (Public health in America), so I think its relevant. He clearly had this sort of thing in mind, even if he didn't use this term. Sam Spade 23:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Overcategorized

There are so many categories included here that it seems not useful to me. Please trim down to essential characteristics. See: WP:OVERCAT. Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 10:05, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your input! I can certainly agree that the topics of study euthenics encompasses includes a wide, eclectic swath of categories, and not just housekeeping as most at the surface surmise (aside from those who think it is the same as eugenics, that is). It appears the vast interdisciplinary nature of the curriculum Ellen Richards envisioned was what I am led to believe ultimately undermined its longevity (along with sexist prejudices, wars, funding, etc.). If a far from comprehensive list seems (and, frankly is) overwhelming, imagine what it would do to curriculum and faculty expenses. Your observation certainly drives home the confusions such an undertaking presents, and those who later broke up the curriculum into separate areas of distinct study demonstrated how the curriculum requires all its plinths in place to support the whole structure. 76.180.38.195 (talk) 04:43, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

(Being new and having read overcat rules, maybe I am not understanding HELP!) Which categories listed would you think aren't specifically covered under the rubric of euthenics, and for what reasons it "seems" that way, would be most helpful. (The bioethics and eugenics (not sure I agree entirely to include) categories were already in place when I got here) Thanks! and look forward to getting your insightful feedback .... 76.180.38.195 (talk) 04:43, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

•  Fixed, thanks. DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 16:23, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I actually wasn't aware of DASonnenfeld's comments here (and on the template's talk page) when I pared down the categories yesterday. I came across the article and the associated template while refining categories on articles in the extremely broad categories Category:Health and Category:Medicine. I think I've chosen the most relevant categories; the others are surely all encompassed in the links provided in the euthenics template. Maralia (talk) 16:32, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Thanks for your contributions, Maralia! Kind regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 18:32, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Euthenics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140127020842/http://vcencyclopedia.vassar.edu:80/three-chapters/the-disappointing-first-thrust-of-euthenics.html to http://vcencyclopedia.vassar.edu/three-chapters/the-disappointing-first-thrust-of-euthenics.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140127020842/http://vcencyclopedia.vassar.edu:80/three-chapters/the-disappointing-first-thrust-of-euthenics.html to http://vcencyclopedia.vassar.edu/three-chapters/the-disappointing-first-thrust-of-euthenics.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://admin.collegepublisher.com/preview/mobile/2.1575/2.1578/1.2668148

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:34, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Euthenics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120304011536/http://vcencyclopedia.vassar.edu/organizations-events-activities/the-vassar-summer-institute.html to http://vcencyclopedia.vassar.edu/organizations-events-activities/the-vassar-summer-institute.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://vcencyclopedia.vassar.edu/three-chapters/the-disappointing-first-thrust-of-euthenics.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://vcencyclopedia.vassar.edu/three-chapters/the-disappointing-first-thrust-of-euthenics.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:38, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Eugenics

@Biohistorian15:: Which part of this edit was unexplained and POV? You originally removed it without explanation in this edit. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:10, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Well, it's an awfully specific sentence. If anything eugenics is a now uncommon sort of public (health) policy. Calling this historical fragment a "pseudoscience" is a lot like calling Taylorism or home economics a pseudoscience. In many ways these most definitively are - especially if you are of a leftist persuasion -, and yet it really doesn't add much to the respective discussions... Biohistorian15 (talk) 18:37, 15 May 2024 (UTC)