He's going over that cliff

The book is wrong. Evolution from the start discredited eugenics or any notion that there were superior races. How could there be if all types of humans had been evolving for the same amount of time?

People supported eugenics because they were racist, not because the theory of evolution ever taught them it was a good idea. People would have manipulated the ideas to fit racism, but it wasn't the cause, and studying it, even then, would have led to the opposite conclusion that the racists were trying to make.

People already knew about selective breeding, selecting against deformities in people has been present since ancient times. Darwin did not introduce this concept.

Also, the idea that Christian morality stood against eugenics at the time was laughable, since the both the British Eugenics Education Society, and the American Eugenics Society counted top clergymen among their members, and modified their message to appeal to Christians.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4001825/

Meanwhile eugenics was being consistently denounced by biologists and anthropologists, and they were especially concerned with the unscientific ideals eugenicists were spouting in order to propagate their message (such as picking undesirable 'traits' that weren't even biological in nature ie committing crimes)

Selective breeding was known about long before Darwin proposed his theory of Evolution.

Eugenics merely applies that knowledge to humans. You don't need to know a thing about evolution.

The Nazis you allude to actually rejected evolution as the origin of species.

Understanding evolution shows how eugenics (and indeed selective breeding) is actually bad for the species in question, and doesn't create a super race. (look at how many purebred dogs have genetic deficiencies compared to mongrels)

People could twist their racism to fit a narrative and claim that was evolution. Darwin himself was very much anti-racist though and his theory shows that there isn't a superior breed of humans.

> indoor adaptation of lawn sports (like ping-pong is to tennis)

Ironically tennis is the outside adaptation of real tennis

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_tennis

I, for one, am waiting for the inevitable AI art porn revolution.

3 nukes

Trinity's Gadget, Little Boy and Fat Man.

My favourite part is when Denmark joined, got beaten, then joined the other side years later and were defeated again.

In theory, most pilots won't crash their planes at full speed.

In practice, almost every crash happens close to take off or landing, and the plane is flying slower than cruise speed. A lot of crashes come from stalling the plane, which also lowers the speed of the eventual lithobraking manoeuvre.

The opposite.

In the US, rich people can afford to hire expensive lawyers to just hold up proceedings until the poor people can no longer afford to continue (see Trump)

Elsewhere, if you have a case, the better lawyers will be on your side because they know they'll get paid. You also get to keep all of your awarded money rather than having to spend most of it on your own legal team.

But if you don't have a case (see above litigious asshole thing) then you deserve to have to pay for wasting everyone's time.

Win win

It's an American thing because rando claims like that can just get thrown out before being heard in other countries.

Also, in sensible places, losing a case in court means you pay the legal fees of both sides, so there is no risk for someone who has done nothing wrong getting sued.

In the US, they just have to make it so going to court is more expensive than just paying them off so you get people suing over all sorts of stupid shit.