What is a Blockchain? Is It Hype? – The New York Times

Posted on by

This article is part of the On Tech newsletter. You can sign up here to receive it weekdays.

Maybe youve read about the blockchain and dont get the fuss. (I am sheepishly raising my hand.) Maybe youve never heard of it.

My colleague Nathaniel Popper will explain what you need to know and separate the blockchain hope from the hype.

Nathaniel spoke to me about why some technologists cant shut up about the blockchain and, in researching his latest article, what he found about how it might or might not! help people remodel the internet with less control by giants like Google and Facebook.

Shira: I need this explained to me repeatedly. What is the blockchain? And how is it different from Bitcoin?

Nathaniel: The blockchain in the simplest terms is a ledger a method of record keeping that was introduced to the public by Bitcoin, which is a cryptocurrency. Unlike conventional records kept by one bank or accountant, the blockchain ledger uses a bunch of computers that each add new entries visible to everyone.

The blockchain design that Bitcoin inspired has been adapted for other kinds of records. The underlying principle is there is no central authority controlling a single ledger. Everyone who is part of the system controls a decentralized and shared record.

Whats an example of how this might work?

A normal currency exchange might take your money, hold it and also hold the currency you buy. If it gets hacked, you could lose your money. With decentralized financial exchange based on the blockchain design, like what Bitcoin uses, you dont have to trust an authority with your money. Two people are automatically matched up through software, and they make the exchange directly with one another.

Blockchains sound pie-in-the-sky.

Thats what I believed for a long time. But these blockchain ideas are shifting from concepts to living though still clunky experiments.

On social networks like LBRY and Minds, people can see for themselves how its different from YouTube or Facebook. The concept is that no company is in control or can delete your account. Each user can see that a posted video or other material wasnt altered by anyone else.

Whether you agree or disagree with Twitter for kicking out Donald Trumps account after the attack on the Capitol, its an interesting idea that under a blockchain-based design, he might have been able to take his more than 80 million Twitter followers to another social network instead of losing them all.

Its going to be awhile before people can assess whether these blockchain applications really do what they propose and are an improvement over the status quo. Bitcoin has been around for a while and smart people still disagree about whether its useful.

There are always downsides. What are they for the blockchain?

One big downside is that central authorities are efficient at building reliable software and fixing it when things break. With a decentralized network of computers and programmers, theres no boss to say that this flaw must be fixed in 20 minutes.

And when theres a centralized system in finance or social networks, a government or another authority can stop terrorists or other criminals from using it. With blockchain-based designs, its harder to exercise control.

Why is there such fanatic devotion to Bitcoin and blockchains?

Bitcoin is like a social movement. The people using the system feel like theyre in charge because in essence theyre making the system run. Thats true for blockchain designs, too. They make people feel empowered in a way they arent with conventional software.

Bitcoin started with a lofty idea to democratize money. But now its like Beanie Babies a thing people buy to make money. Will the blockchain concept also degrade into something less pure?

Its true, many people using Bitcoin are just betting it will go up in value. But Bitcoin also gives people an incentive to get used to the weird concept of big systems that arent controlled by a single authority. Its likely that the excitement and even some of the greed around Bitcoin helped fuel these blockchain experiments.

Ive been transfixed for days by the saga of a Reddit message board and its crusade involving the video game retailer GameStop.

The short version: Several Wall Street professionals are betting that the price of GameStop stock will fall and are smugly confident theyre right. A Reddit group called WallStreetBets has been trying to prove them wrong or just mess with them by organizing to drive up GameStops share price. The companys shares are going haywire. Its all weird and there are no heroes in this tale. (Check out Matt Levines column in Bloomberg Opinion about this.)

When I see the Redditors versus the Wall Street dudes, Im reminded of how being online has changed the way we relate to one another. There is no bright line between internet life and real life.

WallStreetBets exhibits the same kind of engaged, hyper-online social momentum that helped drive the presidential candidacies of Mr. Trump and Andrew Yang and is behind the Korean pop fans who make sure their favorite bands trend online and who engage in political activism.

The GameStop campaigns swarming behavior, unity around a common cause and inside jokes like the one about chicken tenders have similar mechanics as the gaggles who harass gay and transgender video creators on TikTok and got a research ship named Boaty McBoatface a few years ago. (To be clear, stock trading campaigns arent the same as harassing teenagers.)

Ryan Broderick, an internet culture writer, wrote in his Garbage Day newsletter that the GameStop saga showed the similarities between social media and the stock market. If you can create enough hype around something, through memes, conspiracy theories, and harassment campaigns, you can manifest it into reality, he wrote.

My colleague Nellie Bowles wrote this week about the ways that working through screens has started to infuse office culture with the worst elements of aggressive internet conversations. Thats not dissimilar to whats happening with this dark corner of stock market speculation. Humans are adapting to online life in ways that sometimes feel thrilling and other times nihilistic and horrifying.

May we all experience the joy that Nia Dennis, a U.C.L.A. gymnast, is having in this routine. (Thanks to our California Today writer, Jill Cowan, for featuring this video.)

We want to hear from you. Tell us what you think of this newsletter and what else youd like us to explore. You can reach us at ontech@nytimes.com.

If you dont already get this newsletter in your inbox, please sign up here.

See the article here:

What is a Blockchain? Is It Hype? - The New York Times

What is Blockchain Technology? A Step-by-Step Guide For Beginners

Posted on by

What is blockchain technology? What makes it so important?

Imagine a world where you can send money directly to someone without a bank in seconds instead of days, and you dont pay exorbitant bank fees.

Or one where you store money in an online wallet not tied to a bank, meaning you are your own bank and have complete control over your money. You dont need a banks permission to access or move it, and never have to worry about a third party taking it away, or a governments economic policy manipulating it.

This is not a world of the future; it is a world that an avid but growing number of early adopters live in right now. And these are just a few of the important blockchain technology use cases that are transforming the way we trust and exchange value. Well get into the rest later on.

Yet, for many, blockchain technology is still a mysterious or even intimidating topic. Some even remain skeptical that well use this technology in the future. This skepticism that exists today is understandable because were still very early in the development and widespread adoption of blockchain technology.

2021 is to blockchain what the late 1990s were to the internet. And like the internet, blockchain technology is anything but a fad, its here to stay, and if youre reading this, youre early too.

This post demystifies blockchain technology. This is your intro to blockchain technology 101. A complete, easy-to-understand, step by step beginners blockchain breakdown. Youll learn everything from what blockchain is and why it matters, to how blockchain works (step by step) and what today tomorrows most promising blockchain applications may be.

Youll also walk away from this post confident, and well on your way to making informed, independent blockchain technology investment decisions. And youll be no slouch if you want to hold your own in conversations with family and friends too!

So lets dive in

Blockchain technology is the concept or protocol behind the running of the blockchain. Blockchain technology makes cryptocurrencies (digital currencies secured by cryptography) like Bitcoin work just like the internet makes email possible.

The blockchain is an immutable (unchangeable, meaning a transaction or file recorded cannot be changed) distributed digital ledger (digital record of transactions or data stored in multiple places on a computer network) with many use cases beyond cryptocurrencies.

Immutable and distributed are two fundamental blockchain properties. The immutability of the ledger means you can always trust it to be accurate. Being distributed protects the blockchain from network attacks.

Each transaction or record on the ledger is stored in a block. For example, blocks on the Bitcoin blockchain consist of an average of more than 500 Bitcoin transactions.

The information contained in a block is dependent on and linked to the information in a previous block and, over time, forms a chain of transactions. Hence the word blockchain.

There are four types of blockchains:

Public blockchains are open, decentralized networks of computers accessible to anyone wanting to request or validate a transaction (check for accuracy). Those (miners) who validate transactions receive rewards.

Public blockchains use proof-of-work or proof-of-stake consensus mechanisms (discussed later). Two common examples of public blockchains include the Bitcoin and Ethereum (ETH) blockchains.

Private blockchains are not open, they have access restrictions. People who want to join require permission from the system administrator. They are typically governed by one entity, meaning theyre centralized. For example, Hyperledger is a private, permissioned blockchain.

Consortiums are a combination of public and private blockchains and contain centralized and decentralized features. For example, Energy Web Foundation, Dragonchain, and R3.

Take note: There isnt a 100 percent consensus on whether these are different terms. Some make a distinction between the two, while others consider them the same thing.

A sidechain is a blockchain running parallel to the main chain. It allows users to move digital assets between two different blockchains and improves scalability and efficiency. An example of a sidechain is the Liquid Network.

Blockchain isnt just a database, its a new technology stack with digital trust that is revolutionizing the way we exchange value and information across the internet, by taking out the gatekeepers from the process. For a complete and more detailed deep dive check out our article: A Concise History of Blockchain Technology

Blockchain history goes back farther than you might imagine, but weve condensed it by answering four critical questions:

The first blockchain-like protocol was proposed by cryptographer David Chaum in 1982. Later in 1991, Stuart Haber and W. Scott Stornetta wrote about their work on Consortiums.

But it was Satoshi Nakamoto (presumed pseudonym for a person or group of people) who invented and implemented the first blockchain network after deploying the worlds first digital currency, Bitcoin.

Cryptography is a deep and fascinating discipline with a history that goes back further than blockchain. For a richer understanding of how cryptography helps blockchain technology, check out: Why Cryptography Makes Blockchain Unstoppable

Because blockchain technology is the technology behind the blockchain, it cannot be owned. Its like the internet. But anyone can use the technology to run and own their own blockchains.

Satoshi Nakamoto.

Nakamoto sent ten bitcoins to Hal Finney, who built the first reusable proof-of-work system in 2004.

For a more in-depth account of the next section, check out the thorough discussion in: What is Blockchain Technology and How Does it Work?

Lets start with an oversimplification.

As a society, we created ledgers to store informationand they have a variety of applications. For example, we use ledgers in real estate to store a houses records, such as when alterations were made or the house was sold. We also use ledgers in bookkeeping to record all the transactions a company makes.

Bookkeeping mostly relies on double-entry accounting to store transactions. Although this is a step-up from single-entry accounting that lacks transparency and accountability, double-entry accounting also has its pitfalls: Entries are accounted for separately, making it difficult for one counterparty to verify the others records.

Records stored using traditional ledgers are also easy to tamper with, meaning you can easily edit, remove, or add a record. As a result, youre less likely to trust that the information is accurate.

Public blockchains solve both these problems and the way we trust by evolving the traditional bookkeeping model to triple-entry bookkeeping: transactions on a blockchain are cryptographically sealed by a third entry. This creates a tamper-proof record of transactions stored in blocks and verified by a distributed consensus mechanism.

These consensus mechanisms also ensure new blocks get added to any blockchain. An example of a consensus mechanism is proof-of-work (PoW), often referred to as mining.

Mining isnt universal to all blockchains; its just one type of consensus mechanism currently used by Bitcoin and Ethereum, though Ethereum plans to move to anotherproof-of-stake (PoS) by 2022.

Heres how this process works with Bitcoin. When sending Bitcoin, you pay a small fee (in bitcoin) for a network of computers to confirm your transaction is valid. Your transaction is then bundled with other transactions pending in a queue to be added to a new block.

The computers (nodes) then work to validate this list of transactions in the block by solving a complex mathematical problem to come up with a hash, which is a 64-digit hexadecimal number.

Once solved, the block is added to the networkand your fee, combined with all other transaction fees in that block, is the miners reward. Its that simple.

Each new block added to the network is assigned a unique key (via cryptography). To obtain each new key, the previous blocks key and information are inputted into a formula.

As new blocks are continually added through the ongoing mining process, they become increasingly secure and harder to tamper with. Anyone caught trying to edit a record will simply be ignored. All future blocks then depend on information from prior blocksand this dependency from one block to the next forms a secure chain: the blockchain.

You can see this depicted below for house records stored on the blockchain. For example, Block 2 provides a key after taking all the information from Block 1 into account (including the key) and inputting it into a formula. Block 3, in turn, provides a new key after taking all the information from Block 1 and Block 2 into account (including the key) and inputting it into a formula. And so, the process repeats itself indefinitely.

Now, lets dig deeper, exploring proof-of-work (PoW) vs. proof-of-stake (PoS) and the blockchain trilemma, which are fundamental to the public blockchains functioning.

A public blockchain functions through consensus mechanisms: the process for validating transactions without a third party like a bank.

PoW and PoS are two such mechanisms. While their goalto reach a consensus that a transaction is validremains the same, how they get there is a little different.

PoW, the technical term for mining, is the original consensus mechanism. It is still used by Bitcoin and Ethereum as of writing but, as mentioned, Ethereum will move to PoS by 2022. PoW is based on cryptography, which uses mathematical equations only computers can solve.

The example in the previous section of how blocks get added to the Bitcoin Blockchain explains this system.

The two big problems with PoW are that it uses a lot of electricity and can only process a limited number of transactions simultaneously (seven for Bitcoin). Transactions typically take at least ten minutes to complete, with this delay increasing when the network is congested. Though compared to the days-long wait required to wire money across the globe, or even to clear a check, Bitcoins ten-minute delay is quite remarkable.

Other consensus mechanisms were created to solve these PoW problems; the most popular being PoS.

PoS still uses cryptographic algorithms for validation, but transactions get validated by a chosen validator based on how many coins they hold, also known as their stake.

Individuals arent technically mining, and theres no block reward. Instead, blocks are forged. Those participating in this process lock a specific number of coins on the network.

The bigger a persons stake, the more mining power they haveand the higher the chances theyll be selected as the validator for the next block.

To ensure those with the most coins arent always selected, other selection methods are used. These include randomized block selection (forgers with the highest stake and lowest hash value are chosen) and coin age selection (forgers are selected based on how long theyve held their coins)

The results are faster transaction times and lower costs. The NEO and Dash cryptocurrencies, for example, can send and receive transactions in seconds.

Most blockchain projects are built around three core properties: decentralization, scalability, and security. Developers are constantly trying to balance these aspects, so one isnt compromised.

But they often have to sacrifice one for the others. The blockchain trilemma, concept was first coined the scalability trilemma by Ethereum founder, Vitalik Buterin.

Lets look at these concepts in more detail and explore the tradeoffs:

Decentralization means theres no central point of control. Instead, decisions are made via consensus over a distributed network of computers.

There is, however, one significant tradeoff: speed. Sending transactions takes longer because multiple confirmations are required to validate a transaction. Hence why Bitcoin is slow.

Scalability is the ability of the system to cope with a growing number of transactions. Scalability is crucial for mass adoption because any system needs to operate efficiently as more people use it.

Below is a rough breakdown of how many transactions Ethereum, Bitcoin, and credit card companies can process per second:

But achieving scalability often comes at the expense of decentralization. EOS, for example, promises a maximum of 4000 TPS but has come under criticism for being too centralized.

Security is the ability of a blockchain to be protected from attacks. Unfortunately, exchanges and source code have been hacked on many occasions, suggesting that many developers focus on scalability and decentralization at the expense of security.

Bitcoin and Etherum are the two biggest cryptocurrencies and blockchains, so discussing and comparing them makes sense.

The Bitcoin network is a public, decentralized peer-to-peer payment network that allows users to send and receive bitcoins without a bank getting involved. The digital currency or bitcoin token uses the ticker symbol BTC, and is the only cryptocurrency traded on the Bitcoin network.

Transactions are recorded using a digital ledger, and nodes ensure the PoW consensus mechanism is followed (or that mining happens). For many, Bitcoin seems complicated, but it isnt when you view it as a combination of three things:

In 2013, after traveling, meeting with bitcoin developers, and discovering Bitcoins limitations, Vitlaik Buterin decided to improve upon the Bitcoin blockchain and built Ethereum.

The Ethereum network is a public, decentralized peer-to-peer network. Like Bitcoin, it uses nodes and allows users to send and receive cryptocurrencyin this case, Ether.

The network is much more than a payment systemit was primarily created to deploy decentralized applications (dapps) and smart contracts.

Dapps are simply decentralized apps, or computer programs that interact with the Ethereum blockchain. Smart contracts, however, operate on the Ethereum blockchain, and are contracts that automatically execute without an intermediary once certain conditions (written into computer code) are met. For example, a smart contract could be programmed to send a designated person a portion of your Bitcoin when you die.

In summary, Bitcoin and Ethereum networks are public, decentralized peer-to-peer networks with their own tokens: bitcoins and Ether. Both rely on cryptography, and both use digital ledger technology. For a complete Ethereum vs. Bitcoin match up check out our deep dive post: Ethereum Vs Bitcoin: Whats the Difference?

But they differ significantly in purpose and capability. Bitcoin is a decentralized payment system and a store of value. Its blockchain is a database of all bitcoin transactions and tracks their ownership. Ethereum is more than a payment system and allows smart contracts and apps to be built on it, making it a more sophisticated blockchain.

Public open source blockchains are not without their hazards and challenges. Here is a list of the top concerns:

Blockchain networks like Bitcoin use a lot of electricity to validate transactions, leading to environmental concerns. For example, Bitcoin consumes more electricity than a small, medium-sized European country, and Bitcoin mining is threatening Chinas climate change goals.

However, many would argue that Bitcoin is held to higher environmental standards than anyone and anything. This may be true, especially if you consider that the blockchain and Bitcoin are an alternative to the traditional finance system that uses much more electricity and has a much larger environmental impact.

A study by Galaxy Digital suggests Bitcoin energy consumption is less than half that of the traditional banking system. If anything, you could argue that Bitcoin is a step in the right direction for the environment.

No one is saying that making strides to lowering the carbon footprint shouldnt be on the agenda (this is already happening with some mining farms shifting to renewable energy sources like solar panels and the El Salvadoran President calling for a plan to use geothermal energy (volcanoes) to mine Bitcoin).

But its crucial to maintain a balanced view when viewing the cost, environmental impact, and blockchain benefits.

One of blockchains and cryptocurrencies most significant advantages is also its biggest weakness. When you invest in public open-source blockchains by mining or buying cryptocurrencies and store it in your cryptocurrency wallet (your wallet is like your bank account, except only you can access it and have the passwords), only you control your money.

You are your own bank and this is great! But if you lose your seed phrases the list of words that give you access to recover your wallets there is no recourse (compared to banks where you can reset your password). Your money is lost forever.

Unsurprisingly, a large portion of Bitcoin remains permanently lost. According to some estimates, 20% or 3.7 million of the currently minted Bitcoin is probably lost forever.

Even though public blockchains remain more efficient than traditional banking systems, decentralization comes at the cost of scalability. Trying to grow blockchain networks to global capacity, in turn, is the root cause of speed inefficiencies. Its why, as we saw, Bitcoin and Ethereum can only process a maximum of seven and 30 transactions, respectively, compared to Visas 24,000.

Luckily solutions are being built to improve scalability and the speed of transactions. For example, the lightning network allows transactions to happen off the Bitcoin blockchain to speed up transactions. On Ethereum, many innovative Layer 2 (L2) solutions are being developed to improve scalability and speed including rollups, zero-knowledge proofs and side chains.

Some cryptocurrencies are undoubtedly used in unlawful activity. The most famous example is Silk Road: people laundered money and bought drugs on the platform using Bitcoin.

However, this is no different from the illegal activity that constantly happens when people use other currencies like the Dollar.

This false narrative that cryptocurrencies are only or mainly used for illicit activities only delays their inevitable adoption, which can hugely benefit everyone, including the financial system.

For an even more in-depth discussion of the most interesting and disruptive blockchain use cases as of 2021 check our guide: Disruptive Blockchain Technology Use Cases 2021

Blockchain technology is currently used across various industries like supply chain, healthcare, retail, media and advertising, financial services, insurance, travel and transportation, oil and gas, and gaming.

Here are some promising use cases:

With blockchain offering some promising use cases, helping many companies become more efficient, and attracting big companies like Amazon and Tesla, it can be an attractive investment.

But there are risks: Its a new technology, and many projects will not pan out. So, invest only what you can afford to lose, do your own research to determine if the project (or initial coin offering) is worth investing in, and decide what level of exposure you want.

For example, you can get more exposure by investing in cryptocurrencies directly instead of an exchange-traded fund (ETF).

That being said, here are a variety of ways you can invest in the blockchain depending on your goals and risk tolerance:

If youre looking to get started with crypto investing, weve created a comprehensive step-by-step guide you can follow to get started here: How To Invest in Cryptocurrencies: The Ultimate Beginners Guide

Read more from the original source:

What is Blockchain Technology? A Step-by-Step Guide For Beginners

Jitsi – Wikipedia

Posted on by

Videoconferencing and messaging software

Jitsi (from Bulgarian: wires is a collection of free and open-source multiplatform voice (VoIP), video conferencing and instant messaging applications for the web platform, Windows, Linux, macOS, iOS and Android.[4][5][6][7] The Jitsi project began with the Jitsi Desktop (previously known as SIP Communicator). With the growth of WebRTC, the project team focus shifted to the Jitsi Videobridge for allowing web-based multi-party video calling. Later the team added Jitsi Meet, a full video conferencing application that includes web, Android, and iOS clients. Jitsi also operates meet.jit.si, a version of Jitsi Meet hosted by Jitsi for free community use. Other projects include: Jigasi, lib-jitsi-meet, Jidesha, and Jitsi.[8][9][10]

Jitsi has received support from various institutions such as the NLnet Foundation,[11][12] the University of Strasbourg and the Region of Alsace,[13] the European Commission[14] and it has also had multiple participations in the Google Summer of Code program.[15][16]

Work on Jitsi (then SIP Communicator) started in 2003 in the context of a student project by Emil Ivov at the University of Strasbourg.[17] It was originally released as an example video phone in the JAIN-SIP stack and later spun off as a standalone project.[18]

In 2009, Emil Ivov founded the BlueJimp company, which has employed some of Jitsi's main contributors,[19][20] in order to offer professional support and development services[21] related to the project.

In 2011, after successfully adding support for audio/video communication over XMPP's Jingle extensions, the project was renamed to Jitsi since it was no longer "a SIP only Communicator".[22][23] This name originates from the Bulgarian "" (wires).[24]

Jitsi introduced the Videobridge in 2013 to support multiparty video calling with its Jitsi clients using a new Selective Forwarding Unit (SFU) architecture. Later that year initial support was added to the Jitsi Videobridge allowing WebRTC calling from the browser. To demonstrate how Jitsi Videobridge could be used as a production service, BlueJimp offered a free use of its hosted system at meet.jit.si.[25]

On November 4, 2014, "Jitsi + Ostel" scored 6 out of 7 points on the Electronic Frontier Foundation's secure messaging scorecard. They lost a point because there has not been a recent independent code audit.[26]

On February 1, 2015, Hristo Terezov, Ingo Bauersachs and the rest of the team released[27] version 2.6 from their stand at the Free and Open Source Software Developers' European Meeting 2015 event in Brussels. This release includes security fixes, removes support of the deprecated MSN protocol, along with SSLv3 in XMPP. Among other notable improvements, the OSX version bundles a Java8 runtime, enables echo cancelling by default, and uses the CoreAudio subsystem. The Linux build addresses font issues with the GTK+ native look and feel, and fixes some long-standing issues about microphone level on call setup when using the PulseAudio sound system. This release also adds the embedded Java database Hyper SQL Database to improve performance for users with huge configuration files, a feature which is disabled by default. A full list of changes is available on the project web site.[28]

Atlassian acquired BlueJimp on April 5, 2015. After the acquisition, the new Jitsi team under Atlassian ceased meaningful new development work on the Jitsi Desktop project and expanded its efforts on projects related to the Jitsi Videobridge and Jitsi Meet. Regular contributions from the open source community have maintained the Jitsi Desktop project.[29][30][31]

In 2017, jitsi was added as a widget to element.[32]

In October 2018, 8x8 acquired Jitsi from Atlassian.[33]

The Jitsi open source repository on GitHub currently contains 132 repositories. The major projects include:[34]

Jitsi Meet is an open source JavaScript WebRTC application used primarily for video conferencing. In addition to audio and video, screen sharing is available, and new members can be invited via a generated link. The interface is accessible via web browser or with a mobile app.[38] The Jitsi Meet server software can be downloaded and installed on Linux-based computers.[39] Jitsi owner 8x8 maintains a free public-use server for up to 100 participants at meet.jit.si.[40]

Key features of Jitsi Meet

Jitsi Videobridge is a video conferencing solution supporting WebRTC that allows multiuser video communication. It is a Selective Forwarding Unit (SFU) and only forwards the selected streams to other participating users in the video conference call, therefore, CPU horsepower is not that critical for performance.[43][44]

Jitsi spawned some sister projects such as the Jitsi Videobridge Selective Forwarding Unit (SFU) and Jitsi Meet, a video and web conferencing application. To prevent misunderstanding due to the increasing popularity of these other Jitsi projects, the Jitsi client application was rebranded as Jitsi Desktop.

Originally the project was mostly used as an experimentation tool because of its support for IPv6.[45][46] Through the years, as the project gathered members, it also added support for protocols other than SIP.

Jitsi Desktop is no longer actively maintained by the Jitsi team, but it is still maintained by the community.[35]

Features

Jitsi supports multiple operating systems, including Windows as well as Unix-like systems such as Linux, Mac OS X and BSD. The mobile apps can be downloaded on the App Store for iOS and on the Google Play Store and F-droid platform for Android.[47] It also includes:[48]

In an April 2020 test of video conferencing services, US product review website Wirecutter recommended Jitsi Meet as one of its two picks (after the more feature-rich Cisco Webex which it found preferable for large groups and enterprises), stating that Jitsi was "easy to use and reliable" and that "in our testing, the video quality and audio quality were both greatnoticeably sharper and crisper than on Zoom or Webex".[53]

In a follow up review in November 2020 Wirecutter lowered its previous rating, stating that Jitsi was, other than Google Hangouts, "the best, easiest-to-use free services you can find", but also pointed out that "the video and audio quality were both acceptable, though our panelists rated them among the lowest of all the services we tested".[54]

Jitsi has been well adopted in not-for-profit tech sector as default alternative to corporate tools. In mid March 2020 popular Lyon-based tech NGO Framasoft reported that their Jitsi servers were even overloaded by use of state institutions. Jitsi has been test-used as Wikimedia Meet in Wikimedia Foundation on Wikimedia Cloud Services since spring 2020, with high adoption rates initially but mixed reviews.[55]

Read more here:

Jitsi - Wikipedia

Bankruptcy: What is it, How to File & Who Qualifies – Debt.org

Posted on by

What Is Bankruptcy?

Bankruptcy is a court proceeding in which a judge and court trustee examine the assets and liabilities of individuals, partnerships, and businesses whose debts have become so overwhelming they dont believe they can pay them.

The court decides whether to discharge the debts. A discharge means those who owe are no longer legally required to pay them. The court also could dismiss the case if it believes the person or business has enough assets to pay their bills.

Bankruptcy laws were written to give people an opportunity to start over when their finances collapsed. Whether the collapse is a product of bad decisions or bad luck, lawmakers could see that a second chance is a vital fallback in a capitalist economy.

The good news for anyone hesitant about this option is that nearly everyone who files for bankruptcy gets that second chance. The American Bankruptcy Institute says that 95.3% of people who file Chapter 7 bankruptcy are successful.

Filing for bankruptcy is a big decision, said Ashley Morgan of Ashley F. Morgan Law. PC in Herndon, Va. Some people say it should be your last option; I believe it should be something you learn about early, but not your first option.

Bankruptcy can vary so much from situation to situation that you should know if it is a decent option for you before making any significant decision.

Most individuals and businesses filing for bankruptcy have far more debts than money to cover them and dont see that changing anytime soon.

On the other hand, bankruptcy can often be used as a financial planning tool when you do have enough money to repay debts but need to restructure the terms. This is often in cases when people need to repay mortgage arrears or taxes in a structured repayment plan.

What is surprising is that individuals not businesses are the ones most often filing for bankruptcy. They owe money for a mortgage, credit card debt, auto loan or student loan perhaps all four! and dont have the income to pay it.

There were 413,616 bankruptcy cases filed in 2021. Only 14,347 were filed by businesses.

The other surprise is that most of the people filing bankruptcy were not wealthy. Median incomes for those filing Chapter 7 and Chapter 13 bankruptcies range from the low- $30,000s-to-low-$40,000s.

Part of understanding bankruptcy is knowing that, while it is a chance to start over, it definitely affects your credit and future ability to use money. It may prevent or delay foreclosure on a home and repossession of a car, and it can also stop wage garnishment and other legal action creditors use to collect debts.

However, in the end, there is a price to pay, and youll pay it for 7-10 years. One cost is finding low-interest loans.

(A bankruptcy ) makes it much more difficult to obtain lending at a reasonable rate of interest, said David Reischer, bankruptcy attorney and CEO of LegalAdvice.com. Lenders will typically offer low credit score subprime borrowers financing at interest rates that are double the national average for borrowers without a bankruptcy on their credit report.

There were 413,616 bankruptcy filings in the calendar year 2021. According to statistics released by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, that is a decrease of 24% over 2020. Business bankruptcy filings fell 33.7% from 21,655 to 14,347 during the same period.

Filings decreased across the board. Chapter 7, once again the most popular form of bankruptcy (69%) fell to 288,327 from 378,953 in 2020.

Chapter 13 counted 120,002 filings (29%), down from 156,377 the previous year. And Chapter 11 filings dropped from 8,333 to 4,836 in 2020.

The decrease in filings in 2021 does not surprise me, said Shawn Plummer, CEO of The Annuity Expert. Since the pandemic we've seen student loan moratoriums, pauses on rent, higher unemployment benefits (including direct checks to citizens), and other financial aid measures that were as unprecedented as a global pandemic.

Coupled with rock bottom interest rates, people have just had access to more funding than in the past. We may see bankruptcy rates rise this year, with the pressure inflation is putting on consumers.

Ed Flynn, of the American Bankruptcy Institute (ABI), found that 94.9% of Chapter 7 filings in his 2020 study were successfully discharged. Only 21,677 cases of the 442,145 cases completed in 2020 were dismissed.

Individuals who used Chapter 13 bankruptcy, known as wage earners bankruptcy, didnt have nearly as much success. In fact, of the 246,369 Chapter 13 cases completed in 2020, only 43.2% (106,476) were successfully discharged. The majority of cases 139,893 were dismissed and thus unsuccessful.

Like the economy, filings in the U.S. rise and fall as evidenced in the statistics on bankruptcy. In fact, they are like dance partners; where one goes, the other usually follows.

Bankruptcy peaked with just more than two million filings in 2005. That is the same year the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act was passed. That law was meant to stem the tide of consumers and businesses too eager to simply walk away from their debts.

The number of filings dropped 70% in 2006, but then the Great Recession brought the economy to its knees and bankruptcy filings spiked to 1.6 million in 2010. They retreated again as the economy improved. For various reasons, bankruptcies in the early pandemic and again in 2021 decreased to numbers not seen since the 1980s.

When asking yourself Should I file for bankruptcy? think hard about whether you could realistically pay off your debts in less than five years. If the answer is no, it might be time to declare bankruptcy.

The thinking behind this is that the bankruptcy code was set up to give people a second chance, not to punish them forever. If some combination of bad luck and bad choices has devastated you financially and you dont see that changing in the next five years bankruptcy could be your best way out.

Even if you dont qualify for bankruptcy, there is still hope for debt relief. Possible alternatives include a debt management program, a debt consolidation loan or debt settlement. Each one of those choices typically require 3-5 years to reach a resolution, and none of them guarantees all your debts will be settled when you finish.

The decision shouldnt come down to how long Chapter 7 bankruptcy takes the process itself is only 4-6 months. The thing you have to remember is that bankruptcy carries significant long-term penalties. It is stuck on your credit report for 7-10 years, which can make getting loans in the future very difficult.

The flip side of that is there is a great mental and emotional lift when all your debts are eliminated, and youre given a fresh start.

Sometimes waiting to declare bankruptcy can (help) a person or business manage their cash-flow in the short term which provides breathing room to survive over the medium or longer term without declaring bankruptcy, said Reischer.

A person or business should consider alternatives to bankruptcy such as looking for short term loans because declaring bankruptcy has significant and long-ranging effects. Sometimes it can be of benefit to wait until there really is no other option before actually declaring bankruptcy.

If youre filing for bankruptcy, you probably have tried many other options to avoid it, taking great effort to step out of what feels like financial quicksand. Youre likely as exhausted as your attempts and now recognize bankruptcy as a last resort.

Take heart. Youre not alone. Bankruptcy sometimes stems from unavoidable circumstances, or as a consequence of decisions that might not be in ones total control.

The millions of people who lost their jobs or businesses because of the coronavirus, have some hope because of bankruptcy. They still had bills to pay, and in many cases, no way to handle them. Thats what bankruptcy was meant to address. Its not a bailout. It was created to give people a chance to get back on their feet financially and restore their peace of mind.

If your bills have grown to levels your income simply cant handle, having your debts discharged through bankruptcy is a safe, legal and practical choice.

You want to make sure you pick the right time to file, said Morgan. When you are facing something like a foreclosure or a garnishment, bankruptcy tends to be one of the only options to stop those types of collection activities. So, sometimes your hand is forced about when to file.

Alternatively, if you are not at one of those extremes, it is important to review your situation. If you are in a situation where you are living on credit because your pay is not enough to make ends meet, it may not be the right time to fileMost people won't have access to more than a small credit card or two for a while after bankruptcy.

Youve decided to file for bankruptcy after exploring other options. You see filing for bankruptcy as the practical lifeline it can be if handled correctly.

Its as important to know what not to do while filing bankruptcy as it is knowing the proper steps to have a successful bankruptcy filing.

Filing for bankruptcy is a legal process that either reduces, restructures, or eliminates your debts. Whether you get that opportunity is up to the bankruptcy court. You can file for bankruptcy on your own, or you can find a bankruptcy lawyer, which most experts regard as the prudent avenue to pursue.

Bankruptcy costs include attorney fees and filing fees. If you file on your own, you will still be responsible for filing fees. If you cant afford to hire an attorney, you may have options for free legal services. If you need help finding an affordable bankruptcy lawyer or locating free legal services, check with the American Bar Association for resources and information.

Before you file, you must educate yourself on what happens when you file for bankruptcy. Its not simply a matter of telling a judge Im broke! and throwing yourself at the mercy of the court. There is a process a sometimes confusing, sometimes complicated process that individuals and businesses must follow.

The steps for filing bankruptcy are:

Learn More: Can You File Bankruptcy Online?

There are six types of bankruptcy Chapter 7, 9, 11, 12, 13 and 15 and. Chapter 7 and 13 are the most common types affecting individuals:

Chapter 7 bankruptcy is generally the best (and most commonly used) option for those with a low income and few assets. Chapter 7 bankruptcy is a chance to get a court judgment that releases you from responsibility for repaying unsecured debts.

You also could be permitted to keep key assets considered exempt property. Non-exempt property will be sold to repay part of your debt. Just know that property exemptions vary from state to state.

By the end of a successful Chapter 7 filing, the majority (or all) of your debts will be discharged, meaning you will no longer have to repay them. Some debts that wont be discharged in bankruptcy include alimony, child support, some types of unpaid taxes and some types of student loans.

Chapter 7 bankruptcy stays on your credit report for 10 years, but your score could improve over time as you rebuild your finances. While some individuals may not qualify due to high income, others simply cant afford Chapter 7 bankruptcy due to the fees and expenses.

Chapter 13 bankruptcies make up about 36% of non-business bankruptcy filings. A Chapter 13 bankruptcy involves repaying some of your debts in order to have the rest forgiven. This is an option for people who do not want to give up their property or do not qualify for Chapter 7 because their income is too high.

People can only file for bankruptcy under Chapter 13 if their debts do not exceed a certain amount. In 2020, an individuals unsecured debt could not exceed $394,725 and secured debts had to be less than $1.184 million. The specific cutoff is reevaluated periodically, so check with a lawyer or credit counselor for the most up-to-date figures.

Under Chapter 13, you must design a 3-5 year repayment plan for your creditors. Once you successfully complete the plan, the remaining debts are erased.

However, most people do not successfully finish their plans. When this happens, debtors may then choose to pursue a Chapter 7 bankruptcy. If they dont succeed, creditors can resume their attempts to collect the full balance owed.

Chapter 11 is often referred to as reorganization bankruptcy because it gives businesses a chance to stay open while they restructure the debts and assets to pay back creditors.

This is used primarily by large corporations like Hertz Rental Cars, JCPenney, Stein Mart and the XFL, all of whom filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2020. This form can be used by any size business, including partnerships and in some rare cases, individuals. Though the business continues to operate during bankruptcy proceedings, most of the decisions are made with permission from the courts.

There were just 4,836 Chapter 11 filings in 2021.

Bankruptcy does not erase all financial responsibilities.

It does not discharge the following types of debts and obligations:

It also does not protect those who co-signed your debts. Your co-signer agreed to pay your loan if you didnt or couldnt pay. When you declare bankruptcy, your co-signer still may be legally obligated to pay all or part of your loan.

While bankruptcy can offer the best exit plan from crushing financial burdens, its not a one-size-fits-all remedy.

If youre uncomfortable with the credit score collateral damage of filing bankruptcy or some of the messier fallout of filing for bankruptcy, you may want to consider the alternatives:.

If these options arent possible, it may be worth it to look into low-cost bankruptcy options.

Before deciding, it would be wise to speak with legal counsel to determine your best option. To learn more about bankruptcy and other debt-relief options, seek advice from a nonprofit credit counselor or read the Federal Trade Commissions informational pages.

See the article here:

Bankruptcy: What is it, How to File & Who Qualifies - Debt.org

Bankruptcy | United States Courts

Posted on by

About Bankruptcy

Filing bankruptcy can help a person by discarding debt or making a plan to repay debts. A bankruptcy case normally begins when the debtor files a petition with the bankruptcy court. A petition may be filed by an individual, by spouses together, or by a corporation or other entity.

All bankruptcy cases are handled in federal courts under rules outlined in the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.

There are different types of bankruptcies, which are usually referred to by their chapter in the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.

Bankruptcy Basics provides detailed information about filing.

Seeking the advice of a qualified lawyer is strongly recommended because bankruptcy has long-term financial and legal consequences. Individuals can file bankruptcy without a lawyer, which is called filing pro se. Learn more.

Use the forms that are numbered in the 100 series to file bankruptcy for individuals or married couples. Use the forms that are numbered in the 200 series if you are preparing a bankruptcy on behalf of a nonindividual, such as a corporation, partnership, or limited liability company (LLC). Sole proprietors must use the forms that are numbered in the 100 series.

If you need help finding a bankruptcy lawyer, the resources below may help. If you are unable to afford an attorney, you may qualify for free legal services.

View original post here:

Bankruptcy | United States Courts

The Truth About Bankruptcy – Ramsey – Ramsey Solutions

Posted on by

If youre reading this, youre probably thinking about (or in the middle of) bankruptcy. The world may tell you this route is a fresh start . . . or a horrible ending. But whats the truth about bankruptcy?

In simple terms, bankruptcy is a legal process a person can go through to clear some of the debts theyre unable to pay.

If youre so overwhelmed by debt that bankruptcy feels like your only option, know these three things: 1) There is hopeand you will be okay. 2) There are other optionsand you should try every single one before jumping into bankruptcy. 3) Bankruptcy does not define you and will not be the end.

Keep these three things in mind as you read through the rest of this article and learn the truth about bankruptcy, including a breakdown on these specific topics:

What Is Bankruptcy?What Are the Types of Bankruptcy?How Does Bankruptcy Work?What Happens if You Declare Bankruptcy?What Are the Consequences of Declaring Bankruptcy?Should You Declare Bankruptcy?What Are Alternatives to Filing for Bankruptcy?

What Is Bankruptcy?

Bankruptcy is a court proceeding where you tell a judge you cant pay your debts. The judge and court trustee look through your assets and liabilities (aka what you own and what you owe) to decide whether to discharge (or cancel) some of your debts. If the court finds that youreally have no means to pay back your debt, youll go through the official process of declaring bankruptcy.

The term bankruptcy probably came from the Italian phrase banca rottawhich literally means broken benchbecause in medieval days, if a merchant couldnt pay their creditors, they could come break the merchants market stall (or bench).1

Get help with your money questions. Talk to a Financial Coachtoday!

What about bankruptcy in America, specifically? Well, several different bankruptcy acts popped up during times of economic crisis before the Bankruptcy Act of 1898. This one said bankruptcy didnt require the creditors approval and stuck around until the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978which set the laws we follow today.

Now when you file for bankruptcy, no ones coming to smash your bench (thank goodness!), but its still a painful experience.

What Are the Types of Bankruptcy?

There are six different types of bankruptcy:

Chapter 13 is a bankruptcy method for individuals where the court approves a plan for you to repay some or all of your debts over three to five years. You get to keep your assets and youre given time to bring your mortgage up to date. You agree to a monthly payment plan and have to follow a strict budget monitored by the court. (Theres no privacy in bankruptcy.)

People can file for Chapter 13 bankruptcy if their unsecured debt is less than $419,275 and their secured debt is less than $1,257,850.2

Chapter 7 bankruptcy is the most common type for individuals. In this case, the court sells all your assetswith some exceptionsso you can pay back as much debt as possible. The remaining unpaid debt is usually erased.

You could lose your home (or the equity youve put into it) and your car in the process, depending on what the court decides. Theres no set amount of debt you need to qualifythe court just has to decide you dont make enough money to pay off your debt.

Usually just for businesses, Chapter 11 creates a plan for how the business will still run while paying off all their debt.

Chapter 12 bankruptcy allows farmers and fishermen to get on a payment plan for their debts to avoid foreclosure on their property.

International bankruptcy cases are handled in Chapter 15.

Chapter 9 bankruptcy is a repayment plan for towns, cities, schools and the like to pay back their debt.

P.S. For specific information about bankruptcy laws in your area, visit theUnited States Courts website. There youll find info on the process and where to find help in your area. Theres a bankruptcy court for each judicial district in the United States90 districts in all.

How Does Bankruptcy Work

Youll see this theme throughout this entire article: bankruptcy sucks. If you can avoid it, avoid it. (See the What Are Alternatives for Declaring Bankruptcy section for practical ways to do just that.) But if you do everything possible to avoid bankruptcy and still come to that point, heres a quick overview of how to file for bankruptcy and the paperwork youll need to get ready.

Yeahit's going to feel like you're digging up and showing off every bit of private information you've ever had.Really, the only upside is they dont ask for that awkward eighth grade yearbook photo.

Theres a heck of a lot of paperwork and forms and documents involved in bankruptcy, but lets talk about what you need to gather up at the start:

Yes, thats a lot. Bankruptcy is not an easy out! Also, your particular state or court system may require more. Get ready to do a lot of hunting and have a lot of patience here.

What Happens if You Declare Bankruptcy?

If you declare bankruptcy, creditors have to stop any effort to collect money from you, at least temporarily. Most creditors cant write, call or sue you after youve filed.But even if you declare bankruptcy, the courts can require you to pay back certain debts. Each bankruptcy case is unique, and only a court can decide the details of your own bankruptcy.

Lets talk for a moment about what bankruptcy does and doesnt cover:

Bankruptcy can stop foreclosure on your home, repossession of property, or garnishment of your wages. (Garnishment is when the court orders part of your paycheck to be sent directly to your creditorwithout you ever seeing the money). Bankruptcy cancels manybut not allof your debts.

What Are the Consequences of Declaring Bankruptcy?

Lets not sugarcoat it: Bankruptcy takes a huge emotional toll on a person. It ranks up there with divorce, loss of a loved one, and business failure. Beyond the emotional impact, here are other effects of declaring bankruptcy:

This means your name and other personal information will appear in court records for the public to access. Thats right . . . Potential employers, banks, clients and businesses can access the details of your bankruptcy.

Filing fees for Chapter 13 bankruptcy will cost around $310 plus attorney fees, which can be anywhere from $3,000 to $4,000. For a Chapter 7 bankruptcy, youll shell out $335 for filing fees and $1,500 to $3,000 for an attorney.3

Unless you pay cash for a home, it could take one to four years before you qualify for a mortgage loan.4

We arent pro-credit scores, but its important for you to know a bankruptcy dings your FICO. Hard. And that ding lingers. Chapter 13 bankruptcies stay on your credit report for about seven years, and Chapter 7 stays on there for 10 years.

Weve touched on this some, but declaring bankruptcy doesnt make all your problems go awayand it doesnt even make all your debt go away. Most student loans, alimony, child support, any reaffirmed debt, unpaid taxes, government debts or court fines arent cleared in a bankruptcy.

Should You Declare Bankruptcy?

Listen. Weve said it before, and well say it again: Bankruptcy should be your very last option. Check out all the alternatives (aka how to avoid bankruptcy) below. Try each and every one. If nothing works, and youre still so overwhelmingly underwater that you simply cannot swimthen and only then do you declare bankruptcy.

What Are Alternatives to Filing for Bankruptcy

Before you even start gathering up that giant pile of documents you need to file for bankruptcy, go through this list of alternatives:

Budgeting may seem intimidating, but its just a plan for your money. And if youre planning to get out of debt and avoid bankruptcy, you cant do it without a budget. You need to see exactly what money you have coming in and where all of it is going.

Once you see what your money is doing, you can start telling it what you want it to do. And what you want is to have more money freed up to pay off that debt.

That means cutting extras and spending less money. That means learning tips on how to save money on everything. That means being super intentional with every single dollar you make and spend.

Yes, its work. But it could be the exact thing that keeps you from bankruptcy. Dont. Skip. This.

When youre making a budget that will work for you right now, where do you start? Whats the main stuff you need to focus on covering? Start with what we call your Four Walls: food, utilities, shelter and transportation. These are the main essentials.

Keep everyone fed, the lights on, a roof over your heads, and gas in the car to get to work. If these Four Walls are only things you can pay for while youre getting out of debt, thats called survival mode, and that may be what you need to jump into right now.

Heres the deal: If you declare bankruptcy, youre probably going to lose some of your stuff anyway. So right now, sell everything you can. Be the one in charge of what goes and what happens to the money coming in from those sales. Put all of that money straight toward your debt.

You dont have to walk this alone. Read that again: You dont have to walk this alone. Get with a financial coach and talk about your situation. They arent here to judgetheyre here to help.

A financial coach can help you figure out a personalized plan of action for your specific situation. And yes, talking about money can be terrifying, but if you declare bankruptcy, your financial privacy will be out the window immediately. Opening up to a trustworthy financial coach now can help you avoid having to open up to a whole courtroom of people in bankruptcy.

Another way to avoid bankruptcy is to bring in more money. Get yourself a side hustle. There are plenty of ways to work extra hours that fit into your schedule, and also plenty of work-from-home jobs that will keep you from spending extra drive time or gas money.

Youll be busy. But this is for a seasonand if youre on the verge of bankruptcy, youre at war right now. A war against your debt. The good news is, you know who wins. You. Even if you try every single alternative on this list and still cant fight off bankruptcy, you are not defeated.

Hey. We dont say this lightly: Bankruptcy sucks. We know. We also know you can rise above.

Learn how in Financial Peace University (FPU). The teachings in FPU started as conversations over coffee. People struggling with their finances wanted to hear from Dave Ramseyto get hope from his story of hitting rock bottom and digging his way out again. Those conversations eventually turned into our bestselling money course thats been helping people learn how to pay off debt, budget and build wealth for over 25 years. No matter their income. No matter their past.

Start Financial Peace University today and listen to Daves story, learn how to get out of this debt, and believe you can get through thisbankruptcy or no bankruptcy. Because you can. And you will.

See original here:

The Truth About Bankruptcy - Ramsey - Ramsey Solutions

Bankruptcy Basics | United States Courts

Posted on by

Bankruptcy Basics provides basic information to debtors, creditors, court personnel, the media, and the general public on different aspects of federal bankruptcy law. It also provides individuals who may be considering filing a bankruptcy petition with a basic explanation of the different chapters under which a bankruptcy case may be filed and answers to some of the most commonly asked questions about the bankruptcy process.

The United States Bankruptcy Code (title 11, United States Code) and the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, are available online and at your local law library. The local rules of practice and procedure adopted by each bankruptcy court are available on each court website or in person at their clerks office.

While the information presented is accurate as of the date of publication, it should not be cited or relied upon as legal authority. Bankruptcy Basics is not a substitute for the advice of a competent attorney, accountant, or financial advisor, nor is it a step-by-step guide for filing for bankruptcy.

The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts and individual bankruptcy courts cannot provide legal or financial advice.

Read more here:

Bankruptcy Basics | United States Courts

US court rejects J&J bankruptcy strategy for tens of thousands of talc lawsuits – CNN

Posted on by
  1. US court rejects J&J bankruptcy strategy for tens of thousands of talc lawsuits  CNN
  2. J&Js Talc Bankruptcy Case Thrown Out by Appeals Court  The Wall Street Journal
  3. U.S. court rejects J&J bankruptcy strategy for thousands of talc lawsuits  Reuters

See the article here:

US court rejects J&J bankruptcy strategy for tens of thousands of talc lawsuits - CNN

Exclusive-Bed Bath & Beyond preparing to file bankruptcy as soon as this week -sources – Yahoo Finance

Posted on by
  1. Exclusive-Bed Bath & Beyond preparing to file bankruptcy as soon as this week -sources  Yahoo Finance
  2. Here's What's Next for Bed Bath & Beyond as Bankruptcy Looms and Stores Close  The Wall Street Journal
  3. What Happens To Bed Bath & Beyond Stock In Bankruptcy (NASDAQ:BBBY)  Seeking Alpha

See more here:

Exclusive-Bed Bath & Beyond preparing to file bankruptcy as soon as this week -sources - Yahoo Finance

Deep Definition & Meaning | Britannica Dictionary

Posted on by

1 deep /dip/ adjective

deeper; deepest

deeper; deepest

Britannica Dictionary definition of DEEP

We walked in the deep snow.

a deep well/pool/hole

a deep valley between the mountains

The water is deepest in the middle of the lake.

She's afraid of swimming in deep water.

a plant with deep roots

The animals live deep in/within the forest/jungle/mountains, far from any people.

His hands were deep in his pockets.

The sound came from deep within his throat.

This enormous canyon is over a mile deep.

The shelves are 10 inches deep.

We walked through knee-deep snow [=snow as high as our knees] to get to school.

The basement was waist-deep in water. [=the top of the water that filled the basement was as high as a person's waist]

He stepped into an ankle-deep puddle of mud.

She's always been a deep [=profound] thinker. = She's very deep.

This book is far too deep for me.

He has some very deep thoughts on the issue.

a deep discussion on the meaning of life

The country's economy fell into a deep depression/recession.

There are still deep divisions within the group. [=people in the group have very different opinions and can't agree]

Many people here live in deep poverty. [=many people are very poor]

The entire family was in deep shock after hearing about the accident.

I got in deep trouble with my parents for staying out too late.

I offered them my deepest sympathy.

They shared a deep [=profound] concern for the environment.

She felt a deep [=heartfelt] connection with the culture.

a deep sense of happiness and well-being

the deep emotional bond between parent and child

deep feelings of loss

The book made a deep impression on his young mind.

If you are in a deep sleep, you are thoroughly asleep and it is hard to wake you up.

in deep water

the deep end informal

After graduating, he was not afraid to jump in at the deep end and start his new business alone.

Teachers are thrown in the deep end when they first start teaching.

To go off the deep end is to go crazy, such as by behaving foolishly or by becoming very angry or upset.

Her friends thought she had gone off the deep end when she suddenly decided to quit her job.

After his wife died, he started going off the deep end.

I understand that you're angry, but there's no reason to go off the deep end.

deepness noun [noncount]

2 deep /dip/ adverb

deeper; deepest

deeper; deepest

Britannica Dictionary definition of DEEP

The ship now lies deep below/beneath the water's surface.

Our feet sank deeper into the mud.

The treasure was buried deep within the ground.

Their secret offices were located deep underground.

Her angry words hurt/cut him deep. [=deeply]

He stared deep into her eyes.

The detective dug deeper into the murder case.

I stood three feet deep in the water.

They parked the cars three deep [=three cars in a row], and our car was stuck in the middle.

We walked knee-deep in the snow. [=we walked in snow that was deep enough to reach our knees]

He stepped ankle-deep into a puddle of mud.

sports

If you breathe deep, you take a large amount of air into your lungs.

deep down (inside)

If you feel or believe something deep down or deep down inside, you feel or believe it completely even if you do not say it or show it to other people.

He knew deep down inside that she was right.

I believed deep down that we were going to win.

Deep down, I think we all felt the same way.

He might look like a mean old man, but deep down inside he is a very kind person.

in (too) deep informal

run deep

3 deep /dip/ noun

Britannica Dictionary definition of DEEP

the deep

the briny deep

creatures of the deep

the deeps literary + formal

Read more:

Deep Definition & Meaning | Britannica Dictionary

Eugenics | Definition, History, & Facts | Britannica

Posted on by

Top Questions

What is eugenics?

Eugenics is the selection of desired heritable characteristics in order to improve future generations, typically in reference to humans. The term eugenics was coined in the 1880s. It failed as a science in the first half of the 20th century, particularly after Nazi Germany used eugenics to support the extermination of those it considered socially inferior.

When was eugenics popular?

Eugenics was supported by many scientific authorities and political leaders by the time of World War I. However, it ultimately failed as a science in the 1930s and 40s, when the assumptions of eugenicists became heavily criticized and eugenics was used by Nazi Germany to justify the killing of Jews and other non-Aryan populations.

What was the American eugenics movement?

The American eugenics movement gave rise to laws that mandated the sterilization ofby some estimatesas many as 60,000 disabled people in more than 30 states. The first of these laws passed in Indiana in 1907. Some states sterilized disabled or otherwise marginalized individuals until the 1970s, but most hospitals involved havent acknowledged their responsibility.

Summary

eugenics, the selection of desired heritable characteristics in order to improve future generations, typically in reference to humans. The term eugenics was coined in 1883 by British explorer and natural scientist Francis Galton, who, influenced by Charles Darwins theory of natural selection, advocated a system that would allow the more suitable races or strains of blood a better chance of prevailing speedily over the less suitable. Social Darwinism, the popular theory in the late 19th century that life for humans in society was ruled by survival of the fittest, helped advance eugenics into serious scientific study in the early 1900s. By World War I many scientific authorities and political leaders supported eugenics. However, it ultimately failed as a science in the 1930s and 40s, when the assumptions of eugenicists became heavily criticized and the Nazis used eugenics to support the extermination of entire races.

Although eugenics as understood today dates from the late 19th century, efforts to select matings in order to secure offspring with desirable traits date from ancient times. Platos Republic (c. 378 bce) depicts a society where efforts are undertaken to improve human beings through selective breeding. Later, Italian philosopher and poet Tommaso Campanella, in City of the Sun (1623), described a utopian community in which only the socially elite are allowed to procreate. Galton, in Hereditary Genius (1869), proposed that a system of arranged marriages between men of distinction and women of wealth would eventually produce a gifted race. In 1865 the basic laws of heredity were discovered by the father of modern genetics, Gregor Mendel. His experiments with peas demonstrated that each physical trait was the result of a combination of two units (now known as genes) and could be passed from one generation to another. However, his work was largely ignored until its rediscovery in 1900. This fundamental knowledge of heredity provided eugenicistsincluding Galton, who influenced his cousin Charles Darwinwith scientific evidence to support the improvement of humans through selective breeding.

The advancement of eugenics was concurrent with an increasing appreciation of Darwins account for change or evolution within societywhat contemporaries referred to as social Darwinism. Darwin had concluded his explanations of evolution by arguing that the greatest step humans could make in their own history would occur when they realized that they were not completely guided by instinct. Rather, humans, through selective reproduction, had the ability to control their own future evolution. A language pertaining to reproduction and eugenics developed, leading to terms such as positive eugenics, defined as promoting the proliferation of good stock, and negative eugenics, defined as prohibiting marriage and breeding between defective stock. For eugenicists, nature was far more contributory than nurture in shaping humanity.

During the early 1900s eugenics became a serious scientific study pursued by both biologists and social scientists. They sought to determine the extent to which human characteristics of social importance were inherited. Among their greatest concerns were the predictability of intelligence and certain deviant behaviours. Eugenics, however, was not confined to scientific laboratories and academic institutions. It began to pervade cultural thought around the globe, including the Scandinavian countries, most other European countries, North America, Latin America, Japan, China, and Russia. In the United States the eugenics movement began during the Progressive Era and remained active through 1940. It gained considerable support from leading scientific authorities such as zoologist Charles B. Davenport, plant geneticist Edward M. East, and geneticist and Nobel Prize laureate Hermann J. Muller. Political leaders in favour of eugenics included U.S. Pres. Theodore Roosevelt, Secretary of State Elihu Root, and Associate Justice of the Supreme Court John Marshall Harlan. Internationally, there were many individuals whose work supported eugenic aims, including British scientists J.B.S. Haldane and Julian Huxley and Russian scientists Nikolay K. Koltsov and Yury A. Filipchenko.

Galton had endowed a research fellowship in eugenics in 1904 and, in his will, provided funds for a chair of eugenics at University College, London. The fellowship and later the chair were occupied by Karl Pearson, a brilliant mathematician who helped to create the science of biometry, the statistical aspects of biology. Pearson was a controversial figure who believed that environment had little to do with the development of mental or emotional qualities. He felt that the high birth rate of the poor was a threat to civilization and that the higher races must supplant the lower. His views gave countenance to those who believed in racial and class superiority. Thus, Pearson shares the blame for the discredit later brought on eugenics.

In the United States, the Eugenics Record Office (ERO) was opened at Cold Spring Harbor, Long Island, New York, in 1910 with financial support from the legacy of railroad magnate Edward Henry Harriman. Whereas ERO efforts were officially overseen by Charles B. Davenport, director of the Station for Experimental Study of Evolution (one of the biology research stations at Cold Spring Harbor), ERO activities were directly superintended by Harry H. Laughlin, a professor from Kirksville, Missouri. The ERO was organized around a series of missions. These missions included serving as the national repository and clearinghouse for eugenics information, compiling an index of traits in American families, training fieldworkers to gather data throughout the United States, supporting investigations into the inheritance patterns of particular human traits and diseases, advising on the eugenic fitness of proposed marriages, and communicating all eugenic findings through a series of publications. To accomplish these goals, further funding was secured from the Carnegie Institution of Washington, John D. Rockefeller, Jr., the Battle Creek Race Betterment Foundation, and the Human Betterment Foundation.

Prior to the founding of the ERO, eugenics work in the United States was overseen by a standing committee of the American Breeders Association (eugenics section established in 1906), chaired by ichthyologist and Stanford University president David Starr Jordan. Research from around the globe was featured at three international congresses, held in 1912, 1921, and 1932. In addition, eugenics education was monitored in Britain by the English Eugenics Society (founded by Galton in 1907 as the Eugenics Education Society) and in the United States by the American Eugenics Society.

Following World War I, the United States gained status as a world power. A concomitant fear arose that if the healthy stock of the American people became diluted with socially undesirable traits, the countrys political and economic strength would begin to crumble. The maintenance of world peace by fostering democracy, capitalism, and, at times, eugenics-based schemes was central to the activities of the Internationalists, a group of prominent American leaders in business, education, publishing, and government. One core member of this group, the New York lawyer Madison Grant, aroused considerable pro-eugenic interest through his best-selling book The Passing of the Great Race (1916). Beginning in 1920, a series of congressional hearings was held to identify problems that immigrants were causing the United States. As the countrys eugenics expert, Harry Laughlin provided tabulations showing that certain immigrants, particularly those from Italy, Greece, and Eastern Europe, were significantly overrepresented in American prisons and institutions for the feebleminded. Further data were construed to suggest that these groups were contributing too many genetically and socially inferior people. Laughlins classification of these individuals included the feebleminded, the insane, the criminalistic, the epileptic, the inebriate, the diseasedincluding those with tuberculosis, leprosy, and syphilisthe blind, the deaf, the deformed, the dependent, chronic recipients of charity, paupers, and neer-do-wells. Racial overtones also pervaded much of the British and American eugenics literature. In 1923 Laughlin was sent by the U.S. secretary of labour as an immigration agent to Europe to investigate the chief emigrant-exporting nations. Laughlin sought to determine the feasibility of a plan whereby every prospective immigrant would be interviewed before embarking to the United States. He provided testimony before Congress that ultimately led to a new immigration law in 1924 that severely restricted the annual immigration of individuals from countries previously claimed to have contributed excessively to the dilution of American good stock.

Immigration control was but one method to control eugenically the reproductive stock of a country. Laughlin appeared at the centre of other U.S. efforts to provide eugenicists greater reproductive control over the nation. He approached state legislators with a model law to control the reproduction of institutionalized populations. By 1920, two years before the publication of Laughlins influential Eugenical Sterilization in the United States (1922), 3,200 individuals across the country were reported to have been involuntarily sterilized. That number tripled by 1929, and by 1938 more than 30,000 people were claimed to have met this fate. More than half of the states adopted Laughlins law, with California, Virginia, and Michigan leading the sterilization campaign. Laughlins efforts secured staunch judicial support in 1927. In the precedent-setting case of Buck v. Bell, Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., upheld the Virginia statute and claimed, It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind.

The rest is here:

Eugenics | Definition, History, & Facts | Britannica

Eugenics – Wikipedia

Posted on by

Aim to improve perceived human genetic quality

Eugenics ( yoo-JEN-iks; from Ancient Greek (e)'good, well', and - (gens)'come into being, growing')[1][2] is a fringe set of beliefs and practices that aim to improve the genetic quality of a human population.[3][4] Historically, eugenicists have attempted to alter human gene pools by excluding people and groups judged to be inferior or promoting those judged to be superior.[5] In recent years, the term has seen a revival in bioethical discussions on the usage of new technologies such as CRISPR and genetic screening, with a heated debate on whether these technologies should be called eugenics or not.[6]

The concept predates the term; Plato suggested applying the principles of selective breeding to humans around 400BC. Early advocates of eugenics in the 19th century regarded it as a way of improving groups of people. In contemporary usage, the term eugenics is closely associated with scientific racism. Modern bioethicists who advocate new eugenics characterize it as a way of enhancing individual traits, regardless of group membership.

While eugenic principles have been practiced as early as ancient Greece, the contemporary history of eugenics began in the late 19th century, when a popular eugenics movement emerged in the United Kingdom,[7] and then spread to many countries, including the United States, Canada, Australia,[8] and most European countries. In this period, people from across the political spectrum espoused eugenic ideas. Consequently, many countries adopted eugenic policies, intended to improve the quality of their populations' genetic stock. Such programs included both positive measures, such as encouraging individuals deemed particularly "fit" to reproduce, and negative measures, such as marriage prohibitions and forced sterilization of people deemed unfit for reproduction. Those deemed "unfit to reproduce" often included people with mental or physical disabilities, people who scored in the low ranges on different IQ tests, criminals and "deviants", and members of disfavored minority groups.

The eugenics movement became associated with Nazi Germany and the Holocaust when the defense of many of the defendants at the Nuremberg trials of 1945 to 1946 attempted to justify their human-rights abuses by claiming there was little difference between the Nazi eugenics programs and the U.S. eugenics programs.[9] In the decades following World War II, with more emphasis on human rights, many countries began to abandon eugenics policies, although some Western countries (the United States, Canada, and Sweden among them) continued to carry out forced sterilizations. Since the 1980s and 1990s, with new assisted reproductive technology procedures available, such as gestational surrogacy (available since 1985), preimplantation genetic diagnosis (available since 1989), and cytoplasmic transfer (first performed in 1996), concern has grown about the possible revival of a more potent form of eugenics after decades of promoting human rights.

A criticism of eugenics policies is that, regardless of whether negative or positive policies are used, they are susceptible to abuse because the genetic selection criteria are determined by whichever group has political power at the time. Furthermore, many criticize negative eugenics in particular as a violation of basic human rights, seen since 1968's Proclamation of Tehran,[11] as including the right to reproduce. Another criticism is that eugenics policies eventually lead to a loss of genetic diversity, thereby resulting in inbreeding depression due to a loss of genetic variation.[12] Yet another criticism of contemporary eugenics policies is that they propose to permanently and artificially disrupt millions of years of human evolution, and that attempting to create genetic lines "clean" of "disorders" can have far-reaching ancillary downstream effects in the genetic ecology, including negative effects on immunity and on species resilience.[13]

Types of eugenic practices have existed for millennia. Some indigenous peoples of Brazil are known to have practiced infanticide against children born with physical abnormalities since precolonial times.[16] In ancient Greece, the philosopher Plato suggested selective mating to produce a guardian class.[17] In Sparta, every Spartan child was inspected by the council of elders, the Gerousia, which determined if the child was fit to live or not.

The geographer Strabo states that the Samnites would take ten virgin women and ten young men who were considered to be the best representation of their sex and mate them.[18] Following this, the best women would be given to the best male, then the second-best women to the second-best male. It is possible that the "best" men and women were chosen based on athletic capabilities. This would continue until all 20 people had been assigned to one another. If the people involved dishonor themselves, they would have been removed and forcefully separated from their partner.

In the early years of the Roman Republic, a Roman father was obliged by law to immediately kill his child if they were "dreadfully deformed".[19] According to Tacitus, a Roman of the Imperial Period, the Germanic tribes of his day killed any member of their community they deemed cowardly, unwarlike or "stained with abominable vices", usually by drowning them in swamps.[20][21] Modern historians, however, see Tacitus' ethnographic writing as unreliable in such details.[22][23]

The idea of a modern project for improving the human population through selective breeding was originally developed by Francis Galton, and was initially inspired by Darwinism and its theory of natural selection.[24] Galton had read his half-cousin Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, which sought to explain the development of plant and animal species, and desired to apply it to humans. Based on his biographical studies, Galton believed that desirable human qualities were hereditary traits, although Darwin strongly disagreed with this elaboration of his theory.[25] In 1883, one year after Darwin's death, Galton gave his research a name: eugenics.[26] With the introduction of genetics, eugenics became associated with genetic determinism, the belief that human character is entirely or in the majority caused by genes, unaffected by education or living conditions. Many of the early geneticists were not Darwinians, and evolution theory was not needed for eugenics policies based on genetic determinism.[24] Throughout its recent history, eugenics has remained controversial.

Eugenics became an academic discipline at many colleges and universities and received funding from many sources.[28] Organizations were formed to win public support and sway opinion towards responsible eugenic values in parenthood, including the British Eugenics Education Society of 1907 and the American Eugenics Society of 1921. Both sought support from leading clergymen and modified their message to meet religious ideals.[29] In 1909, the Anglican clergymen William Inge and James Peile both wrote for the Eugenics Education Society. Inge was an invited speaker at the 1921 International Eugenics Conference, which was also endorsed by the Roman Catholic Archbishop of New York Patrick Joseph Hayes.[29] The book The Passing of the Great Race (Or, The Racial Basis of European History) by American eugenicist, lawyer, and amateur anthropologist Madison Grant was published in 1916. Although influential, the book was largely ignored when it first appeared, and it went through several revisions and editions. Nevertheless, the book was used by people who advocated restricted immigration as justification for what became known as "scientific racism".[30]

Three International Eugenics Conferences presented a global venue for eugenists with meetings in 1912 in London, and in 1921 and 1932 in New York City. Eugenic policies in the United States were first implemented in the early 1900s.[31] It also took root in France, Germany, and Great Britain.[32] Later, in the 1920s and 1930s, the eugenic policy of sterilizing certain mental patients was implemented in other countries including Belgium,[33] Brazil,[34] Canada,[35] Japan and Sweden. Frederick Osborn's 1937 journal article "Development of a Eugenic Philosophy" framed it as a social philosophya philosophy with implications for social order.[36] That definition is not universally accepted. Osborn advocated for higher rates of sexual reproduction among people with desired traits ("positive eugenics") or reduced rates of sexual reproduction or sterilization of people with less-desired or undesired traits ("negative eugenics").

In addition to being practiced in a number of countries, eugenics was internationally organized through the International Federation of Eugenics Organizations. Its scientific aspects were carried on through research bodies such as the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute of Anthropology, Human Heredity, and Eugenics, the Cold Spring Harbor Carnegie Institution for Experimental Evolution, and the Eugenics Record Office. Politically, the movement advocated measures such as sterilization laws. In its moral dimension, eugenics rejected the doctrine that all human beings are born equal and redefined moral worth purely in terms of genetic fitness. Its racist elements included pursuit of a pure "Nordic race" or "Aryan" genetic pool and the eventual elimination of "unfit" races. Many leading British politicians subscribed to the theories of eugenics. Winston Churchill supported the British Eugenics Society and was an honorary vice president for the organization. Churchill believed that eugenics could solve "race deterioration" and reduce crime and poverty.[45][46][47]

Early critics of the philosophy of eugenics included the American sociologist Lester Frank Ward,[48] the English writer G. K. Chesterton, the German-American anthropologist Franz Boas, who argued that advocates of eugenics greatly over-estimate the influence of biology,[49] and Scottish tuberculosis pioneer and author Halliday Sutherland. Ward's 1913 article "Eugenics, Euthenics, and Eudemics", Chesterton's 1917 book Eugenics and Other Evils, and Boas' 1916 article "Eugenics" (published in The Scientific Monthly) were all harshly critical of the rapidly growing movement. Sutherland identified eugenists as a major obstacle to the eradication and cure of tuberculosis in his 1917 address "Consumption: Its Cause and Cure",[50] and criticism of eugenists and Neo-Malthusians in his 1921 book Birth Control led to a writ for libel from the eugenist Marie Stopes. Several biologists were also antagonistic to the eugenics movement, including Lancelot Hogben.[51] Other biologists such as J. B. S. Haldane and R. A. Fisher expressed skepticism in the belief that sterilization of "defectives" would lead to the disappearance of undesirable genetic traits.[52]

Among institutions, the Catholic Church was an opponent of state-enforced sterilizations, but accepted isolating people with hereditary diseases so as not to let them reproduce.[53] Attempts by the Eugenics Education Society to persuade the British government to legalize voluntary sterilization were opposed by Catholics and by the Labour Party.[54] The American Eugenics Society initially gained some Catholic supporters, but Catholic support declined following the 1930 papal encyclical Casti connubii.[29] In this, Pope Pius XI explicitly condemned sterilization laws: "Public magistrates have no direct power over the bodies of their subjects; therefore, where no crime has taken place and there is no cause present for grave punishment, they can never directly harm, or tamper with the integrity of the body, either for the reasons of eugenics or for any other reason."[55]

As a social movement, eugenics reached its greatest popularity in the early decades of the 20th century, when it was practiced around the world and promoted by governments, institutions, and influential individuals (such as the playwright G. B. Shaw). Many countries enacted[56] various eugenics policies, including: genetic screenings, birth control, promoting differential birth rates, marriage restrictions, segregation (both racial segregation and sequestering the mentally ill), compulsory sterilization, forced abortions or forced pregnancies, ultimately culminating in genocide. By 2014, gene selection (rather than "people selection") was made possible through advances in genome editing,[57] leading to what is sometimes called new eugenics, also known as "neo-eugenics", "consumer eugenics", or "liberal eugenics"; which focuses on individual freedom and allegedly pull away from racism, sexism, heterosexism or a focus on intelligence.[58]

Anti-miscegenation laws in the United States made it a crime for individuals to wed someone categorized as belonging to a different race.[59] These laws were part of a broader policy of racial segregation in the United States to minimize contact between people of different ethnicities. Race laws and practices in the United States were explicitly used as models by the Nazi regime when it developed the Nuremberg Laws, stripping Jewish citizens of their citizenship.[60]

The scientific reputation of eugenics started to decline in the 1930s, a time when Ernst Rdin used eugenics as a justification for the racial policies of Nazi Germany. Adolf Hitler had praised and incorporated eugenic ideas in Mein Kampf in 1925 and emulated eugenic legislation for the sterilization of "defectives" that had been pioneered in the United States once he took power. Some common early 20th century eugenics methods involved identifying and classifying individuals and their families, including the poor, mentally ill, blind, deaf, developmentally disabled, promiscuous women, homosexuals, and racial groups (such as the Roma and Jews in Nazi Germany) as "degenerate" or "unfit", and therefore led to segregation, institutionalization, sterilization, and even mass murder. The Nazi policy of identifying German citizens deemed mentally or physically unfit and then systematically killing them with poison gas, referred to as the Aktion T4 campaign, is understood by historians to have paved the way for the Holocaust.[62][63][64]

By the end of World War II, many eugenics laws were abandoned, having become associated with Nazi Germany. H. G. Wells, who had called for "the sterilization of failures" in 1904,[65] stated in his 1940 book The Rights of Man: Or What Are We Fighting For? that among the human rights, which he believed should be available to all people, was "a prohibition on mutilation, sterilization, torture, and any bodily punishment".[66] After World War II, the practice of "imposing measures intended to prevent births within [a national, ethnical, racial or religious] group" fell within the definition of the new international crime of genocide, set out in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.[67] The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union also proclaims "the prohibition of eugenic practices, in particular those aiming at selection of persons".[68] In spite of the decline in discriminatory eugenics laws, some government mandated sterilizations continued into the 21st century. During the ten years President Alberto Fujimori led Peru from 1990 to 2000, 2,000 persons were allegedly involuntarily sterilized.[69] China maintained its one-child policy until 2015 as well as a suite of other eugenics based legislation to reduce population size and manage fertility rates of different populations.[70][71][72] In 2007, the United Nations reported coercive sterilizations and hysterectomies in Uzbekistan.[73] During the years 2005 to 2013, nearly one-third of the 144 California prison inmates who were sterilized did not give lawful consent to the operation.[74]

Developments in genetic, genomic, and reproductive technologies at the beginning of the 21st century have raised numerous questions regarding the ethical status of eugenics, effectively creating a resurgence of interest in the subject. Some, such as UC Berkeley sociologist Troy Duster, have argued that modern genetics is a back door to eugenics.[75] This view was shared by then-White House Assistant Director for Forensic Sciences, Tania Simoncelli, who stated in a 2003 publication by the Population and Development Program at Hampshire College that advances in pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) are moving society to a "new era of eugenics", and that, unlike the Nazi eugenics, modern eugenics is consumer driven and market based, "where children are increasingly regarded as made-to-order consumer products".[76] In a 2006 newspaper article, Richard Dawkins said that discussion regarding eugenics was inhibited by the shadow of Nazi misuse, to the extent that some scientists would not admit that breeding humans for certain abilities is at all possible. He believes that it is not physically different from breeding domestic animals for traits such as speed or herding skill. Dawkins felt that enough time had elapsed to at least ask just what the ethical differences were between breeding for ability versus training athletes or forcing children to take music lessons, though he could think of persuasive reasons to draw the distinction.[77]

Lee Kuan Yew, the founding father of Singapore, promoted eugenics as late as 1983.[78] A proponent of nature over nurture, he stated that "intelligence is 80% nature and 20% nurture", and attributed the successes of his children to genetics.[79] In his speeches, Lee urged highly educated women to have more children, claiming that "social delinquents" would dominate unless their fertility rate increased.[79] In 1984, Singapore began providing financial incentives to highly educated women to encourage them to have more children. In 1985, incentives were significantly reduced after public uproar.[80][81]

In October 2015, the United Nations' International Bioethics Committee wrote that the ethical problems of human genetic engineering should not be confused with the ethical problems of the 20th century eugenics movements. However, it is still problematic because it challenges the idea of human equality and opens up new forms of discrimination and stigmatization for those who do not want, or cannot afford, the technology.[82]

The National Human Genome Research Institute says that eugenics is "inaccurate", "scientifically erroneous and immoral".[83]

Transhumanism is often associated with eugenics, although most transhumanists holding similar views nonetheless distance themselves from the term "eugenics" (preferring "germinal choice" or "reprogenetics") to avoid having their position confused with the discredited theories and practices of early-20th-century eugenic movements.[84]

Prenatal screening has been called by some a contemporary form of eugenics because it may lead to abortions of fetuses with undesirable traits.[85]

A system was proposed by California State Senator Nancy Skinner to compensate victims of the well-documented examples of prison sterilizations resulting from California's eugenics programs, but this did not pass by the bill's 2018 deadline in the Legislature.[86]

The term eugenics and its modern field of study were first formulated by Francis Galton in 1883,[87] drawing on the recent work of his half-cousin Charles Darwin.[88][89] Galton published his observations and conclusions in his book Inquiries into Human Faculty and Its Development.

The origins of the concept began with certain interpretations of Mendelian inheritance and the theories of August Weismann. The word eugenics is derived from the Greek word eu ("good" or "well") and the suffix -gens ("born"); Galton intended it to replace the word "stirpiculture", which he had used previously but which had come to be mocked due to its perceived sexual overtones.[91] Galton defined eugenics as "the study of all agencies under human control which can improve or impair the racial quality of future generations".[92]

Historically, the idea of eugenics has been used to argue for a broad array of practices ranging from prenatal care for mothers deemed genetically desirable to the forced sterilization and murder of those deemed unfit.[5] To population geneticists, the term has included the avoidance of inbreeding without altering allele frequencies; for example, J. B. S. Haldane wrote that "the motor bus, by breaking up inbred village communities, was a powerful eugenic agent."[93] Debate as to what exactly counts as eugenics continues today.[94]

Edwin Black, journalist and author of War Against the Weak, argues that eugenics is often deemed a pseudoscience because what is defined as a genetic improvement of a desired trait is a cultural choice rather than a matter that can be determined through objective scientific inquiry. The most disputed aspect of eugenics has been the definition of "improvement" of the human gene pool, such as what is a beneficial characteristic and what is a defect. Historically, this aspect of eugenics was tainted with scientific racism and pseudoscience.[96][97]

Early eugenicists were mostly concerned with factors of perceived intelligence that often correlated strongly with social class. These included Karl Pearson and Walter Weldon, who worked on this at the University College London.[25] In his lecture "Darwinism, Medical Progress and Eugenics", Pearson claimed that everything concerning eugenics fell into the field of medicine.[98]

Eugenic policies have been conceptually divided into two categories.[5] Positive eugenics is aimed at encouraging reproduction among the genetically advantaged; for example, the reproduction of the intelligent, the healthy, and the successful. Possible approaches include financial and political stimuli, targeted demographic analyses, in vitro fertilization, egg transplants, and cloning.[99] Negative eugenics aimed to eliminate, through sterilization or segregation, those deemed physically, mentally, or morally "undesirable". This includes abortions, sterilization, and other methods of family planning.[99] Both positive and negative eugenics can be coercive; in Nazi Germany, for example, abortion was illegal for women deemed by the state to be fit.[100]

The first major challenge to conventional eugenics based on genetic inheritance was made in 1915 by Thomas Hunt Morgan. He demonstrated the event of genetic mutation occurring outside of inheritance involving the discovery of the hatching of a fruit fly (Drosophila melanogaster) with white eyes from a family with red eyes, demonstrating that major genetic changes occurred outside of inheritance. Additionally, Morgan criticized the view that certain traits, such as intelligence and criminality, were hereditary because these traits were subjective.[102] Despite Morgan's public rejection of eugenics, much of his genetic research was adopted by proponents of eugenics.[103][104]

The heterozygote test is used for the early detection of recessive hereditary diseases, allowing for couples to determine if they are at risk of passing genetic defects to a future child.[105] The goal of the test is to estimate the likelihood of passing the hereditary disease to future descendants.[105]

There are examples of eugenic acts that managed to lower the prevalence of recessive diseases, although not influencing the prevalence of heterozygote carriers of those diseases. The elevated prevalence of certain genetically transmitted diseases among the Ashkenazi Jewish population (TaySachs, cystic fibrosis, Canavan's disease, and Gaucher's disease), has been decreased in current populations by the application of genetic screening.[106]

Pleiotropy occurs when one gene influences multiple, seemingly unrelated phenotypic traits, an example being phenylketonuria, which is a human disease that affects multiple systems but is caused by one gene defect.[107] Andrzej Pkalski, from the University of Wrocaw, argues that eugenics can cause harmful loss of genetic diversity if a eugenics program selects a pleiotropic gene that could possibly be associated with a positive trait. Pekalski uses the example of a coercive government eugenics program that prohibits people with myopia from breeding but has the unintended consequence of also selecting against high intelligence since the two go together.[108]

Eugenic policies may lead to a loss of genetic diversity. Further, a culturally-accepted "improvement" of the gene pool may result in extinction, due to increased vulnerability to disease, reduced ability to adapt to environmental change, and other factors that may not be anticipated in advance. This has been evidenced in numerous instances, in isolated island populations. A long-term, species-wide eugenics plan might lead to such a scenario because the elimination of traits deemed undesirable would reduce genetic diversity by definition.[12]

While the science of genetics has increasingly provided means by which certain characteristics and conditions can be identified and understood, given the complexity of human genetics, culture, and psychology, at this point there is no agreed objective means of determining which traits might be ultimately desirable or undesirable. Some conditions such as sickle-cell disease and cystic fibrosis respectively confer immunity to malaria and resistance to cholera when a single copy of the recessive allele is contained within the genotype of the individual, so eliminating these genes is undesirable in places where such diseases are common.[13]

Societal and political consequences of eugenics call for a place in the discussion on the ethics behind the eugenics movement.[109] Many of the ethical concerns regarding eugenics arise from its controversial past, prompting a discussion on what place, if any, it should have in the future. Advances in science have changed eugenics. In the past, eugenics had more to do with sterilization and enforced reproduction laws.[110] Now, in the age of a progressively mapped genome, embryos can be tested for susceptibility to disease, gender, and genetic defects, and alternative methods of reproduction such as in vitro fertilization are becoming more common.[111] Therefore, eugenics is no longer ex post facto regulation of the living but instead preemptive action on the unborn.[112]

With this change, however, there are ethical concerns which some groups feel warrant more attention before this practice is commonly rolled out. Sterilized individuals, for example, could volunteer for the procedure, albeit under incentive or duress, or at least voice their opinion. The unborn fetus on which these new eugenic procedures are performed cannot speak out, as the fetus lacks the voice to consent or to express their opinion.[113] Philosophers disagree about the proper framework for reasoning about such actions, which change the very identity and existence of future persons.[114]

Edwin Black has described potential "eugenics wars" as the worst-case outcome of eugenics. In his view, this scenario would mean the return of coercive state-sponsored genetic discrimination and human rights violations such as the compulsory sterilization of persons with genetic defects, the killing of the institutionalized and, specifically, the segregation and genocide of races which are considered inferior. Law professors George Annas and Lori Andrews have argued that the use of these technologies could lead to such human-posthuman caste warfare.[115][116]

Environmental ethicist Bill McKibben argued against germinal choice technology and other advanced biotechnological strategies for human enhancement. He writes that it would be morally wrong for humans to tamper with fundamental aspects of themselves (or their children) in an attempt to overcome universal human limitations, such as vulnerability to aging, maximum life span and biological constraints on physical and cognitive ability. Attempts to "improve" themselves through such manipulation would remove limitations that provide a necessary context for the experience of meaningful human choice. He claims that human lives would no longer seem meaningful in a world where such limitations could be overcome with technology. Even the goal of using germinal choice technology for clearly therapeutic purposes should be relinquished, he argues, since it would inevitably produce temptations to tamper with such things as cognitive capacities. He argues that it is possible for societies to benefit from renouncing particular technologies, using Ming China, Tokugawa Japan and the contemporary Amish as examples.[117]

Some, for example Nathaniel C. Comfort from Johns Hopkins University, claim that the change from state-led reproductive-genetic decision-making to individual choice has moderated the worst abuses of eugenics by transferring the decision-making process from the state to patients and their families.[118] Comfort suggests that "the eugenic impulse drives us to eliminate disease, live longer and healthier, with greater intelligence, and a better adjustment to the conditions of society; and the health benefits, the intellectual thrill and the profits of genetic bio-medicine are too great for us to do otherwise."[119] Others, such as bioethicist Stephen Wilkinson of Keele University and Honorary Research Fellow Eve Garrard at the University of Manchester, claim that some aspects of modern genetics can be classified as eugenics, but that this classification does not inherently make modern genetics immoral.[120]

In their book published in 2000, From Chance to Choice: Genetics and Justice, bioethicists Allen Buchanan, Dan Brock, Norman Daniels and Daniel Wikler argued that liberal societies have an obligation to encourage as wide an adoption of eugenic enhancement technologies as possible (so long as such policies do not infringe on individuals' reproductive rights or exert undue pressures on prospective parents to use these technologies) in order to maximize public health and minimize the inequalities that may result from both natural genetic endowments and unequal access to genetic enhancements.[121]

In his book A Theory of Justice (1971), American philosopher John Rawls argued that "Over time a society is to take steps to preserve the general level of natural abilities and to prevent the diffusion of serious defects".[122] The original position, a hypothetical situation developed by Rawls, has been used as an argument for negative eugenics.[123][124]

The novel Brave New World (1931) is a dystopian social science fiction novel by the English author Aldous Huxley, set in a futuristic World State, whose citizens are environmentally engineered into an intelligence-based social hierarchy.

The film Gattaca (1997) provides a fictional example of a dystopian society that uses eugenics to decide what people are capable of and their place in the world. Though Gattaca was not a box office success, it was critically acclaimed and is said to have crystallized the debate over the controversial topic of human genetic engineering.[125][126] The film's dystopian depiction of "genoism" has been cited by many bioethicists and laypeople in support of their hesitancy about, or opposition to, eugenics and the societal acceptance of the genetic-determinist ideology that may frame it.[127] In a 1997 review of the film for the journal Nature Genetics, molecular biologist Lee M. Silver stated that "Gattaca is a film that all geneticists should see if for no other reason than to understand the perception of our trade held by so many of the public-at-large".[128] In his 2018 book Blueprint, behavioural geneticist Robert Plomin writes that while Gattaca warned of the dangers of genetic information being used by a totalitarian state, genetic testing could also favour better meritocracy in democratic societies which already administer psychological tests to select people for education and employment. Plomin suggests that polygenic scores might supplement testing in a manner that is free of biases.[129]

Various works by author Robert A. Heinlein mention The Howard Foundation, a group aimed at improving human longevity through selective breeding.

Go here to read the rest:

Eugenics - Wikipedia

Eugenics: Its Origin and Development (1883 – Present) – Genome.gov

Posted on by

Timeline select a year for more details

Francis Galton (pictured), Charles Darwins cousin, derived the term eugenics from the Greek word eugenes, meaning good in birth or good in stock. Galton first used the term in an 1883 book, Inquiries into Human Fertility and Its Development. Francis Galton (pictured), Charles Darwins cousin, derived the term eugenics from the Greek word eugenes, meaning good in birth or good in stock. Galton first used the term in an 1883 book, Inquiries into Human Fertility and Its Development.

We greatly want a brief word to express the science of improving stock, which is by no means confined to questions of judicious mating, but which, especially in the case of man, takes cognizance of all influences that tend in however remote a degree to give to the more suitable races or strains of blood a better chance of prevailing speedily over the less suitable than they otherwise would have had. The word eugenics would sufficiently express the idea.

Galton believed that eugenics could control human evolution and development. In his writings, he argued that abstract social traits, such as intelligence, were a result of heredity. In his book, he claimed that only higher races could be successful. Galtons writings reflected prejudiced notions about race, class, gender and the overwhelming power of heredity.

Follow this link:

Eugenics: Its Origin and Development (1883 - Present) - Genome.gov

21 Eugenics Movement Supporters That Might Shock You

Posted on by

Teddy Roosevelt, Helen Keller, and other revered historical figures who supported the eugenics movement at the height of its pre-WWII popularity.

Like this gallery?Share it:

1 of 22

Theodore Roosevelt was a proponent of the sterilization of criminals and the supposedly feeble-minded. In 1913, Roosevelt wrote a letter to eugenics supporter and biologist C.B. Davenport, saying that society has no business to permit degenerates to reproduce their kind."Wikimedia Commons

2 of 22

Telephone inventor Alexander Graham Bell helped lead the First International Eugenics Conference in 1912. Bell also published a paper in which he bluntly listed the steps that would prevent the proliferation of the deaf: (1) Determine the causes that promote intermarriages among the deaf and dumb; and (2) remove them."Kentucky Digital Library

3 of 22

Even Helen Keller, surprisingly enough, advocated for the eugenics movement. She once stated, Our puny sentimentalism has caused us to forget that a human life is sacred only when it may be of some use to itself and to the world."Wikimedia Commons

4 of 22

Winston Churchill advocated for compulsory labor camps for mental defectives in 1911. The year prior to this, Churchill wrote a letter advocating for sterilization saying, "The unnatural and increasingly rapid growth of the Feeble-Minded and Insane classes ... constitutes a national and race danger which it is impossible to exaggerate."levanrami/Flickr

5 of 22

Activist Margaret Sanger opened the first birth control clinic and she aligned her fight for contraception with the eugenics movement. She stated that birth control is nothing more or less than the facilitation of the process of weeding out the unfit [and] of preventing the birth of defectives."Wikimedia Commons

6 of 22

Harvard-educated sociologist W. E. B. Du Bois was a leading African-American activist and writer who called for dividing the black community into four groups. He promoted marriage and reproduction within the most desirable group, the talented tenth, and wanted to breed out the lowest group, the submerged tenth."Library of Congress

7 of 22

However, in 1926 he wrote an essay called "The Eugenics Cult", in which he condemned the theory.

8 of 22

Celebrated writer George Bernard Shaw explored the biology of eugenics in his political writing. He is quoted as saying, "We should find ourselves committed to killing a great many people whom we now leave living, and to leave living a great many people whom we at present kill." He added, "A great many people would have to be put out of existence simply because it wastes other people's time to look after them."Wikimedia Commons

9 of 22

Oliver Wendell Holmes, Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court from 1902 to 1932, wrote the 1927 Buck v. Bell decision that allowed for compulsory sterilization of the "unfit" in the U.S., stating, It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. ... Three generations of imbeciles are enough."Library of Congress

10 of 22

The famous French explorer Jacques Cousteau was in favor of population control saying in an interview, Worldpopulation must be stabilized and to do thatwe must eliminate 350,000 people per day.This is so horrible to contemplate that weshouldn't even say it. But the general situation in which we are involved is lamentable."Marka/UIG via Getty Images

11 of 22

Doctor, nutritionist, and the inventor of Corn Flakes, John Harvey Kellogg also ran a sanitarium. He wrote in the 1913 issue of the Journal of Public Health, "Long before the race reaches the state of universal incompetency, the impending danger will be appreciated ... and, through eugenics and euthenics, the mental soundness of the race will be saved." Library of Congress

12 of 22

Long before the eugenics movement, Greek philosopher Plato wrote, "The good must be paired with the good, and the bad with the bad, and the offspring of the one must be reared and of the other destroyed; in this way the flock will be preserved in prime condition."Wikimedia Commons

13 of 22

Prominent British economist William Beveridge remarked in 1909, "Those men who through general defects are unable to fill such a whole place in industry are to be recognized as unemployable ... with complete and permanent loss of all citizen rights including not only the franchise but civil freedom and fatherhood."Wikimedia Commons

14 of 22

Alice Lee Moqu was an American newspaper correspondent, photographer, and suffragist. She also supported sterilization of certain genetic undesirables, such as those with hereditary illness in their bloodline.Wikimedia Commons

15 of 22

Co-founder of the London School of Economics, Sidney Webb carried out research in the 1890s confirming the high fertility of the improvident whom he described as "degenerate hordes unfit for social life."Library of Congress

16 of 22

British biologist Francis Crick is quoted as saying, "in an attempt to solve the problem of irresponsible people and especially those who are poorly endowed genetically having large numbers of unnecessary children ... sterilization is the only answer."Wikimedia Commons

17 of 22

Neurologist Dr. Robert Foster Kennedy stood up before the American Psychiatric Association in 1941 and told them, "I am in favor of euthanasia for those hopeless ones who should never have been born-Natures mistakes."Wikimedia Commons

18 of 22

English economist Thomas Malthus, who died before the eugenics movement truly took hold, believed in eugenics because he was concerned about food shortages. He once noted, "The power of population is indefinitely greater than the power in the earth to produce subsistence for man."Wikimedia Commons

19 of 22

In the American Child Health Associations Childs Bill of Rights, Herbert Hoover made the statement, There shall be no child in America that had not the complete birthright of a sound mind in a sound body."U.S. National Archives and Records Administration

20 of 22

Scientist and peace activist Linus Pauling was forced to defend his eugenics position in 1972, well after the height of the eugenics movement, when a woman at Michigan State accused him of promoting racism. (Pauling had said carries of genetic diseases shouldnt procreate.) He replied, "It's alright for her [a mother] to be allowed to determine the extent to which she will suffer, but she should not be allowed to produce a child who will suffer. This is immoral. It is wrong to produce a little black child who will lead a life of suffering. I would say this is not racism. I advocate the very same thing to ... all kinds who carry these abnormal genes."Oregon State University/Flickr

21 of 22

Even after World War II, economist John Maynard Keynes supported eugenics, population control, and migration restrictions as Director of the British Eugenics Society. He asserted that eugenics was, "the most important and significant branch of sociology."International Monetary Fund/Wikimedia Commons

22 of 22

Like this gallery?Share it:

The eugenics movement will forever be associated with Adolf Hitler, whose quest to build an Aryan master race during the 1930s and '40s culminated in the extermination of millions.

However, Hitler wasn't the first to champion the idea of wiping away humans deemed to be unfit. In large part, he actually took inspiration from the United States. As Hitler remarked in 1924's Mein Kampf, "There is today one state in which at least weak beginnings toward a better conception are noticeable. Of course, it is not our model German Republic, but the United States."

The popularity of eugenics and related ideas in the U.S. (as well as Western Europe) at the time was in part a reactionary response to increased industrialization and immigration. The latter was on the rise and cities became more crowded as people moved to be closer to work. And with supporters of the early eugenics movement believing that people inherited traits like feeble-mindedness and poverty, this meant to them that society had an obligation to thin this growing herd.

Moreover, Western eugenics was an outgrowth or racist and colonialist ideologies. Pseudosciences (like phrenology, for example) allowed some whites to "scientifically" justify their bigotry and then take things a step further by claiming that "lesser" races needed to be phased out. In this way, Social Darwinism became a means to construct a supposed hierarchy of race and ensure that white people (and their genes) remained the ideal.

Fittingly enough, eugenics actually has some of its roots with Charles Darwin. His theories about "survival of the fittest" inspired his cousin, Francis Galton, to start the eugenics movement as the world would come to know it (and coin the word "eugenics" itself) in the late 19th century.

From there, eugenics actually enjoyed a period of mainstream popularity in both Darwin and Galton's native England as well as the U.S. and elsewhere in the late 19th century and early 20th. Both abroad and in the United States, proponents of the eugenics movement believed it a Caucasian responsibility to Westernize other civilizations. This was coupled with the idea of producing fewer, better children who would create a better race, and cure many economic and social problems.

Before Hitler took eugenics to its deadly extremes, more people than you might think considered at least some eugenics-related ideas to be completely legitimate despite their serious moral implications. Eugenics was something that many prominent people once supported, whether vocally, financially, or politically. Presidents, economists, activists, and philosophers many of which you'd never think would be supporters all once spoke out in support of the eugenics movement.

See for yourself in the gallery above.

Next, dig deeper into the ugly history of American eugenics. Then, learn about how Hitler's eugenics efforts as part of the Lebensborn program.

Read more from the original source:

21 Eugenics Movement Supporters That Might Shock You

Eugenics | Holocaust Encyclopedia

Posted on by

Background

A significant number of Nazi persecutory policies stemmed from theories of racial hygiene, or eugenics. Such theories were prevalent among the international scientific community in the first decades of the twentieth century. The term eugenics (from the Greek for good birth or stock) was coined in 1883 by the English naturalist Sir Francis Galton. The term's German counterpart, racial hygiene (Rassenhygiene), was first employed by German economist Alfred Ploetz in 1895. At the core of the movements belief system was the principle that human heredity was fixed and immutable.

For eugenicists, the social ills of modern societycriminality, mental illness, alcoholism, and even povertystemmed from hereditary factors. Supporters of eugenic theory did not believe that these problems resulted from environmental factors, such as the rapid industrialization and urbanization of the late 19th century in Europe and North America. Rather, they advanced the science of eugenics to address what they regarded as a decline in public health and morality.

Eugenicists had three primary objectives. First, they sought to discover hereditary traits that contributed to societal ills. Second, they aimed to develop biological solutions to these problems. Finally, eugenicists sought to campaign for public health measures to combat them.

Eugenics found its most radical interpretation in Germany, but its influence was by no means limited to that nation alone. Throughout the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, eugenic societies sprang up throughout most of the industrialized world. In Western Europe and the United States, the movement was embraced in the 1910s and 1920s. Most supporters in those places endorsed the objectives of American advocate Charles Davenport. Davenport advocated for the development of eugenics as a science devoted to the improvement of the human race through better breeding. Its supporters lobbied for positive eugenic efforts. They advocated for public policies that aimed to maintain physically, racially, and hereditarily healthy individuals. For example, they sought to provide marital counseling, motherhood training, and social welfare to deserving families. In doing so, eugenics supporters hoped to encourage better families to reproduce.

Efforts to support the productive members of society brought negative measures. For instance, there were efforts to redirect economic resources from the less valuable in order to provide for the worthy. Eugenicists also targeted the mentally ill and cognitively impaired. Many members of the eugenics community in Germany and the United States promoted strategies to marginalize segments of society with limited mental or social capacity. They promoted limiting their reproduction through voluntary or compulsory sterilization. Eugenicists argued that there was a direct link between diminished capacity and depravity, promiscuity, and criminality.

Members of the eugenic community in Germany and the US also viewed the racially inferior and poor as dangerous. Eugenicists maintained that such groups were tainted by deficiencies they inherited. They believed that these groups endangered the national community and financially burdened society.

More often than not eugenicists scientifically-drawn conclusions did little more than to incorporate popular prejudice. However, by employing research and theory to their efforts, eugenicists could assert their beliefs as scientific fact.

German eugenics pursued a separate and terrible course after 1933. Before 1914, the German racial hygiene movement did not differ greatly from its British and American counterparts. The German eugenics community became more radical shortly after World War I. The war brought unprecedented carnage. In addition, Germany saw economic devastation in the years between World War I and World War II. These factors heightened the division between those considered hereditarily valuable and those considered unproductive. For instance, some believed that hereditarily valuable Germans had died on the battlefield, while the unproductive Germans institutionalized in prisons, hospitals, and welfare facilities remained behind. Such arguments resurfaced in the Weimar and early Nazi eras as a way to justify eugenic sterilization and a decrease in social services for the disabled and institutionalized.

By 1933, the theories of racial hygiene were embedded into the professional and public mindset. These theories influenced the thinking of Adolf Hitler and many of his followers. They embraced an ideology that blended racial antisemitism with eugenic theory. In doing so, the Hitler regime provided context and latitude for the implementation of eugenic measures in their most concrete and radical forms.

Racial hygiene shaped many of Nazi Germanys racial policies. Medical professionals implemented many of these policies and targeted individuals the Nazis defined as hereditarily ill: those with mental, physical, or social disabilities. Nazis claimed these individuals placed both a genetic and a financial burden upon society and the state.

Nazi authorities resolved to intervene in the reproductive capacities of persons classified as hereditarily ill. One of the first eugenic measures they initiated was the 1933 Law for the Prevention of Offspring with Hereditary Diseases (Hereditary Health Law). The law mandated forcible sterilization for nine disabilities and disorders, including schizophrenia and hereditary feeblemindedness. As a result of the law, 400,000 Germans were ultimately sterilized in Nazi Germany. In addition, eugenic beliefs shaped Germanys 1935 Marital Hygiene Law. This law prohibited the marriage of persons with diseased, inferior, or dangerous genetic material to healthy German Aryans.

Eugenic theory provided the basis for the euthanasia (T4) program. This clandestine program targeted disabled patients living in institutions throughout the German Reich for killing. An estimated 250,000 patients, the overwhelming majority of them German Aryans, fell victim to this clandestine killing operation.

Author(s): United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, Washington, DC

Read more from the original source:

Eugenics | Holocaust Encyclopedia

Eugenics and Scientific Racism – Genome.gov

Posted on by

When the HGP began in 1990, there was widespread concern that genomics would lead to a new era of eugenics. Many bioethicists were aware of how past eugenic movements used genetic information to ostracize historically marginalized groups and believed that people would use the outcomes of the HGP and subsequent developments in genomics to further marginalize and stigmatize certain groups. People were also concerned that the HGP would usher in a new era of behavior genetics, where genes would be used to explain certain behaviors. Many discussions about the HGP revolved around whether employers or insurance companies could use genomic information to discriminate against specific individuals.

In response to these and other concerns, the National Center for Human Genome Research (now the National Human Genome Research Institute, or NHGRI) founded the Ethical, Legal and Societal Implications (ELSI) Research Program. For more than three decades, the NHGRI ELSI Research Program has funded research on all aspects of the social and ethical implications of genomics, including the legacies of eugenics and scientific racism in the context of new and emerging genetic and genomic technologies.

Building on a long tradition of these legacies, NHGRI is committed to taking proactive steps to provide leadership in the field of genomics in addressing structural racism and anything that would foster eugenics-based ideas. Together with efforts of the National Institute of Health, including the UNITE Initiative, NHGRI will continue to combat the legacies of eugenics and scientific racism and their present-day manifestations to develop an inclusive and welcoming genomics community.

In addition, the NHGRI History of Genomics Program is committed to interrogating the legacies of eugenics and scientific racism to further develop ethical and equitable uses of genomics.

Only by understanding and fully engaging with the history of eugenics and scientific racism will genomics serve to facilitate an inclusive and humane future.

Excerpt from:

Eugenics and Scientific Racism - Genome.gov