评论
打印
Eugenics is an interesting word because it could be used to describe a number of different things.
优生学这个词很有趣，因为它可以用来描述很多不同的事情。
So one way to think about eugenics is just as selective breeding or sort of control over reproduction.
对优生学的一种理解就是选择性繁殖或对生殖的某种控制。
So, if we think about involuntary sterilization in Virginia in the 1920s, that's saying there's better people, there's worse people; it's on the basis of something "genetic" about them, and we're gonna allocate freedoms on the basis of that hierarchy.
想一想20世纪20年代弗吉尼亚州的非自愿绝育，那时候有更好的人，也有更差的人；这取决于他们的“基因”，我们会根据那种等级制度去分配生育自由。
Some people have reproductive autonomy: they get to choose to have children, but other people don't- they are involuntarily sterilized.
有些人有生育自主权：他们可以选择生孩子，但另一些人没有--他们是被迫绝育的。
So it's this control of reproduction that's coercive, and is based on this idea, this hierarchy of people.
正是这种强制性的生育控制，它以这种观点为基础，基于人的等级制度。
The predominant response to the eugenic perspective has been what I call 'Genome blindness.'
对优生学观点的主要反应是我所说的“基因组失明”。
And that's really the idea that we should avoid studying or talking about, scientifically or politically, biological or genetic differences between people.
它是指我们应该避免从科学或政治角度研究或谈论人与人之间的生物或基因差异。
We can't use any genetic information to slot people into eugenic hierarchy if there are no genetic differences or if we insist, they don't matter.
如果没有遗传差异，或者如果我们坚持认为这些差异无关紧要，那就不能使用任何遗传信息把人们划分成不同的优生等级。
If you ask the average American how much do you think genes influence your intelligence or personality or risk for mental illness, their answer is almost never "zero."
如果你问问普通的美国人，你觉得基因对你的智力、个性或患精神疾病的风险有多大影响，他们的回答几乎从来都不是“零”。
So if people already think that genes make a difference for outcomes that they care about, if the only people that are talking about that are the most extreme, sometimes hate-filled voices, that is a problem.
所以，如果人们已经认为基因会对他们关心的结果产生影响，如果唯一在发声的那一波人是最极端、有时甚至充满仇恨的，那就是个问题了。
I really worry that too much of the conversation is focused right now on the ethics of knowledge production, and not enough on the brass tacks of legislation and policy at the state-by-state level.
我很担心，现在的讨论过多地集中在知识生产的伦理问题上，却忽视了各州层面的立法和政策的根本性问题。
I have a colleague and friend here at the University of Texas who wrote a fascinating book called "Predict and Surveil."
我在德克萨斯大学有一位同事和朋友，他写了一本很棒的书，名叫《预测与监测》。
She embedded herself with the LA Police Department for several years and looked how they saw predictive policing, algorithms, and data aggregation in order to police, and I would say, over-police some communities.
她在洛杉矶警察局工作了几年，研究了他们如何看待预测警务、算法和数据聚合，以便对一些社区进行监管，或者我觉得是过度监管一些社区。
And a lot of the data that they're using comes from proprietary software that's provided by for-profit companies.
他们使用的许多数据来自营利性公司提供的专有软件。
When people think about dystopian scenarios, I actually worry less about the overt white nationalists and more about people who know they can make money using genetic information.
当人们想到反乌托邦的情景时，我实际上更加担心那些知道自己可以利用基因信息赚钱的人，而不是公开的白人民族主义者。
So the challenge then is, how do we identify genetic differences between people, even genetic differences that might have a relationship to outcomes we care about socially?
因此，我们面临的挑战是，如何识别人与人之间的基因差异，甚至是那些可能与我们在社会上关心的结果有关的基因差异？
So something like intelligence or education or impulsivity, without using them or interpreting them eugenically.
比如像智力、教育或冲动之类的东西，不从优生学的角度使用或解释它们。
When we think about our own intimate relationships, we can separate what makes someone valuable, worthy of freedom, worthy of resources, worthy of consideration of welfare, from what does our capitalist economy currently value.
当我们思考自己的亲密关系时，我们可以将使某人有价值、值得自由、值得资源、值得福利的东西与我们资本主义经济目前所看重的东西区分开。
And I think that's the distinction that we also need to draw between observing genetic differences versus using them eugenically.
我认为这也是我们在观察遗传差异和应用优生学之间需要区分的地方。
