because it could be used to describe

因為它可以用來描述

a number of different things.

一些不同的事情。

So one way to think about eugenics

是以，思考優生學的一個方法是

is just as selective breeding

就像選擇性育種一樣

or sort of control over reproduction.

或對繁殖的某種控制。

So, if we think about involuntary sterilization

是以，如果我們考慮非自願絕育的問題

in Virginia in the 1920s,

20世紀20年代，在弗吉尼亞州。

that's saying there's better people,

那是說有更好的人。

there's worse people;

還有更糟糕的人。

it's on the basis of something "genetic" about them,

這是基於他們的一些 "基因"。

and we're gonna allocate freedoms

而我們要分配的自由

on the basis of that hierarchy.

在這個等級制度的基礎上。

Some people have reproductive autonomy:

有些人有生殖自主權。

they get to choose to have children,

他們可以選擇生孩子。

but other people don't-

但其他人不...

they are involuntarily sterilized.

他們在非自願的情況下被絕育。

So it's this control of reproduction that's coercive,

是以，正是這種對繁殖的控制是強制性的。

and is based on this idea, this hierarchy of people.

而且是基於這種想法，這種人的等級制度。

The predominant response to the eugenic perspective

對優生學觀點的主要反應是

has been what I call 'Genome blindness.'

一直以來，我稱之為 "基因組盲"。

And that's really the idea

這就是真正的想法

that we should avoid studying

我們應該避免研究

or talking about, scientifically or politically,

或談論，在科學上或政治上。

biological or genetic differences between people.

人與人之間的生物或遺傳差異。

We can't use any genetic information

我們不能使用任何遺傳信息

to slot people into eugenic hierarchy

將人們納入優生優育的等級體系

if there are no genetic differences

如果沒有基因差異

or if we insist, they don't matter.

或者如果我們堅持的話，它們也不重要。

If you ask the average American

如果你問普通美國人

how much do you think genes influence

你認為基因的影響有多大？

your intelligence or personality

你的智力或個性

or risk for mental illness,

或精神疾病的風險。

their answer is almost never "zero."

他們的答案几乎從來不是 "零"。

So if people already think that genes make a difference

是以，如果人們已經認為基因會產生差異

for outcomes that they care about,

為他們所關心的結果。

if the only people that are talking

如果只有那些人在談論

about that are the most extreme,

關於這一點，是最極端的。

sometimes hate-filled voices,

有時是充滿仇恨的聲音。

that is a problem.

這是個問題。

I really worry that too much of the conversation

我真的擔心，太多的對話

is focused right now on the ethics

現在的重點是道德問題

of knowledge production,

知識生產的。

and not enough on the brass tacks

而在銅鑼灣上又不夠

of legislation and policy at the state-by-state level.

在各州的立法和政策方面。

I have a colleague and friend here

我在這裡有一個同事和朋友

at the University of Texas

在德克薩斯大學

who wrote a fascinating book called

他寫了一本迷人的書，叫做

"Predict and Surveil."

"預測和監視"。

She embedded herself with the LA Police Department

她將自己嵌入到洛杉磯警察部門

for several years and looked

幾年來，他一直在尋找

how they saw predictive policing,

他們是如何看待預測性警務的。

algorithms, and data aggregation

算法，以及數據彙總

in order to police, and I would say,

以此來維持治安，而我想說。

over-police some communities.

對一些社區進行過度治安管理。

And a lot of the data that they're using

而他們所使用的很多數據

comes from proprietary software

來自於專有軟件

that's provided by for-profit companies.

這是由營利性公司提供的。

When people think about dystopian scenarios,

當人們想到歇斯底里的情景時。

I actually worry less about the overt white nationalists

實際上，我對公開的白人民族主義者的擔心較少

and more about people who know

和更多瞭解的人

they can make money using genetic information.

他們可以利用基因資訊賺錢。

So the challenge then is, how do we identify

是以，挑戰是，我們如何確定

genetic differences between people,

人與人之間的遺傳差異。

even genetic differences that might have a relationship

甚至可能有關係的遺傳差異

to outcomes we care about socially?

對我們關心的社會成果？

So something like intelligence

是以，類似情報的東西

or education or impulsivity,

或教育或衝動。

without using them or interpreting them eugenically.

不使用它們或對它們進行優生解釋。

When we think about our own intimate relationships,

當我們想到我們自己的親密關係。

we can separate what makes someone valuable,

我們可以分開什麼使一個人有價值。

worthy of freedom, worthy of resources,

值得擁有自由，值得擁有資源。

worthy of consideration of welfare,

值得考慮的福利。

from what does our capitalist economy currently value.

從我們的資本主義經濟目前的價值。

And I think that's the distinction

而我認為這就是區別所在

that we also need to draw

我們還需要繪製

between observing genetic differences

觀察到的遺傳差異之間

versus using them eugenically.

而不是用它們來進行優生。