You appear to oppose those things¹ - I'd certainly be interested in your reasoning. Is/Should reproduction be a basic right of all people that can not be withdrawn (despite many states in the world advocating death sentences).

Is there something wrong generally with wanting to improve the genetic make up of the world's human population - most of us practice a mild [innate] form of eugenics in our mate selection don't we?

Or is it specifics of what Russell advocates that are most clearly wrong in your view?

Probably this is going too far OT ...?

Eugenics is mass murder and and forced sterilization is the murder of the unborn. There's plenty of resources and goodwill to make up for unwanted groups by a certain few. You take your mate selection and keep it to yourself.

I haven't looked deeply into Russells reasonings and theories in this area, nor do I want to.

Eugenics can be practised without premature death of any person. So I'm afraid you need to do better on that argument.

Sterilisation, eg vasectomy, can be done without any loss of life; so ditto on that argument.

Well, let's hope useless eaters like yourself get vasectomies or just euthanize yourselves for the Sake of Humanity, in which you are having great trouble assimilating. That's why you're just a figment of the imagination and should remain that way.

>useless eaters //

Not an insult I'm familiar with - can you explain.

For you.. nup.

I hope you don't construe my remarks about him as approval of eugenics. Many of his views were indeed antiquated and deserve criticism but I don't believe they invalidate his contributions to other sciences.

No I don't. I was going to add that I find it interesting (actually disturbing) when a person that is leading or has mastered one field of endeavour ventures into another and uses that platform. Often squandered but just shows them to be human. But maybe being on edge and thoughtful is what brought them to mastery in the first place.