• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Eugenics in the United States

If a person wants to remove himself from the population because he feels his genes are detrimental, can he not make that objective judgement for himself?
Be my guest. See also link.
 
You're focusing too much on the forest and not seeing the trees. I chose "mentally retarded" as an example that everyone would understand. Choose any genetic disability that can be passed through the gene pool.

DO you mean I need to see the forest and not just the trees? Either way, you can take the social model of disability and start to question a lot of matters, which is what I thought the above author did well (at least in the first 100 some pages).
 
DO you mean I need to see the forest and not just the trees? Either way, you can take the social model of disability and start to question a lot of matters, which is what I thought the above author did well (at least in the first 100 some pages).

Either way and I'm not seeing how this relates to my original query asking for secular reasoning to oppose eugenics.
 
Well, one of the precursory conditions for Evolutionary theory is that mutation must occur. With eugenics, mutations can't (as they'd be removed) occur. Done.

Eugenics does not negate all mutation, just those perceived as negative mutations. Plus, even "removing" all mutations does not prevent future mutations from occuring.
 
would it be an altogether bad thing if we could use eugenics to get rid of things like down syndrome, williams syndrome, Angelman syndrome, Prader–Willi syndrome, etc.?

A lot of times what you will run into is on a discussion on whether or not these matters should be seen as illnesses as opposed to characteristics of an individual or a group of people. For instance, if the medical community still considered homosexuality as an illness, this would come into conflict with the many people who view homosexuality as a part of who they are, as opposed to something that is not. In most matters of disability, individuals with disabilities overwhelmingly describe what the disability in terms of it being part of their identity (a neutral to positive one, at that) rather than something that needs to be rooted out and destroyed. This is why you can get the idea that homosexuality is a part of who that person is, but it does not define them in totality. Attempts to remove a part of them is still seen as an offense.
 
Last edited:
Either way and I'm not seeing how this relates to my original query asking for secular reasoning to oppose eugenics.

Because eugenics carries a lot of social assumptions about individuals with disabilities that feed into their need to correct perceived problems associated with being the deviation from perceived normality.
 
Because eugenics carries a lot of social assumptions about individuals with disabilities that feed into their need to correct perceived problems.

Ah, I see. The pathology of eugenics. However, I can understand the basic arguments the eugenics crowd puts forth. We have practiced animal husbandry on other species since the beginning of our species and to a certain extent to our own (mate selection). We've sought, and achieved, the shaping of those species to our benefit. Since we too are animals, why can't we extend the practice to our own species?

(patiently waiting for Godwin to appear :mrgreen:)
 
Ah, I see. The pathology of eugenics. However, I can understand the basic arguments the eugenics crowd puts forth. We have practiced animal husbandry on other species since the beginning of our species and to a certain extent to our own (mate selection). We've sought, and achieved, the shaping of those species to our benefit. Since we too are animals, why can't we extend the practice to our own species?

(patiently waiting for Godwin to appear :mrgreen:)

Yeah, that is the basic starting point: animal breeding, vegetable breeding. However, what I also meant was, to what extent is our legal vision of individuals with disabilities too paternalistic, do we exaggerate that sort of thing with the way some legal guardians behave toward those with disabilities, and so forth. If we create this reality where Group A is afforded x number of individual liberties, and not other liberties, do we really have the ultimate justification and knowledge for doing so, or are we arbitrarily making some of these distinctions and restrictions? Then if we are arbitrarily doing this, does our constructed reality then distort what is good and bad about a person, and further, could you be advocating policies which effectively remove these individuals from life based on an arbitrary set of standards that would not be applied to the same group in another country or continent? There has been some fantastic work on disability cultural anthropology in the past which would not only make disability somewhat malleable, but would also entirely call into question the more radical act of trying to shape humanity toward some fundamental breeding path based on those unique conceptions of disability.
 
Last edited:
A lot of times what you will run into is on a discussion on whether or not these matters should be seen as illnesses as opposed to characteristics of an individual or a group of people. For instance, if the medical community still considered homosexuality as an illness, this would come into conflict with the many people who view homosexuality as a part of who they are, as opposed to something that is not. In most matters of disability, individuals with disabilities overwhelmingly describe what the disability in terms of it being part of their identity (a neutral to positive one, at that) rather than something that needs to be rooted out and destroyed. This is why you can get the idea that homosexuality is a part of who that person is, but it does not define them in totality. Attempts to remove a part of them is still seen as an offense.

Its a fair point that the definition for being "different" versus being "ill" can be vague and prone to abuse. However, that doesn't mean that there aren't some pretty clear cut genetic disorders that pretty much everyone can agree should be eliminated. Tay Sachs for instance, condemns children to an inevitable death before they hit puberty. There is a genetic disorder that runs in my family and while those afflicted by it are no less human beings, they didn't want their children to have neuromuscular problems if given a choice.

Obviously state coerced sterilizations are a very bad idea. That doesn't mean that voluntary genetic testing and using techniques like PGD can't prevent some rather tragic circumstances.
 



Yeah, let's ignore that Evolutionary biology, Sociobiology, and Evolutionary psychology. Other than that, we might not have any secular means for ethics.

I doubt that you have pondered the implications of an ethics based on these disciplines. I doubt you'd like them. In general, though, although science is very good ad describing what is, it's not possible to go from there to what ought to be.



Well, one of the precursory conditions for Evolutionary theory is that mutation must occur. With eugenics, mutations can't (as they'd be removed) occur. Done.

Well, no, not at all. First of all, nothing in evolutionary theory says that mutation must occur. It may occur, but not must. Secondly, there's nothing in that theory that says it can't be directed mutation.

What "rights" do you have religiously that can't stem secularly?

All of them.
 
Yeah, that is the basic starting point: animal breeding, vegetable breeding. However, what I also meant was, to what extent is our legal vision of individuals with disabilities too paternalistic, do we exaggerate that sort of thing with the way some legal guardians behave toward those with disabilities, and so forth. If we create this reality where Group A is afforded x number of individual liberties, and not other liberties, do we really have the ultimate justification and knowledge for doing so, or are we arbitrarily making some of these distinctions and restrictions? Then if we are arbitrarily doing this, does our constructed reality then distort what is good and bad about a person, and further, could you be advocating policies which effectively remove these individuals from life based on an arbitrary set of standards that would not be applied to the same group in another country or continent? There has been some fantastic work on disability cultural anthropology in the past which would not only make disability somewhat malleable, but would also entirely call into question the more radical act of trying to shape humanity toward some fundamental breeding path based on those unique conceptions of disability.

Yeah, but that discussion is easily avoided by the eugenics folks who target genetic sourced diseases that are viewed as negative across all cultures. There is no arbitrariness to the view that say Tay-Sachs, is a negative genetic disability.

Sorry rathi, didn't see your post before I posted this.
 
Be my guest. See also link.

I'm well aware of VHEMT and antinatalism.

Eugenics does not negate all mutation, just those perceived as negative mutations. Plus, even "removing" all mutations does not prevent future mutations from occuring.

No it doesn't. However, it does negate those phenotypically appear negative. It also is counter-evolutionary as mutations are to be selected naturally and humans would be artificially be selecting them.

I doubt that you have pondered the implications of an ethics based on these disciplines. I doubt you'd like them. In general, though, although science is very good ad describing what is, it's not possible to go from there to what ought to be.

What implications are you afraid of LD? "Ought" is wishful. It's not about wishful thinking, LD, it's about what is / is not. Sorry delusions aren't tolerated well in science (although they can be treated should one choose to seek help).

Well, no, not at all. First of all, nothing in evolutionary theory says that mutation must occur. It may occur, but not must. Secondly, there's nothing in that theory that says it can't be directed mutation.

Variation is a requirement. Really? You don't know this?

All of them.

How do you figure, sportsfan?
 
Its a fair point that the definition for being "different" versus being "ill" can be vague and prone to abuse. However, that doesn't mean that there aren't some pretty clear cut genetic disorders that pretty much everyone can agree should be eliminated. Tay Sachs for instance, condemns children to an inevitable death before they hit puberty. There is a genetic disorder that runs in my family and while those afflicted by it are no less human beings, they didn't want their children to have neuromuscular problems if given a choice.

Obviously state coerced sterilizations are a very bad idea. That doesn't mean that voluntary genetic testing and using techniques like PGD can't prevent some rather tragic circumstances.

Absolutely, it's a dialogue that won't end, but many disabilities have reached that point where it has become something with an individual and group identity. Other disabilities, not so much.
 

What implications are you afraid of LD? "Ought" is wishful. It's not about wishful thinking, LD, it's about what is / is not. Sorry delusions aren't tolerated well in science (although they can be treated should one choose to seek help).

What implications? Well, if you have no problems with an ethics that does not allow for freedom, equality, democracy, self-determination, freedom from slavery, freedom from torture, freedom of thought and religion, reproductive rights, etc., then such an ethics would be your cup of tea.

The "is-ought" problem is central to the secular ethics project. You should probably read up on it if you're going to comment. In short, just because science says that certain things are is not necessarily a compelling reason to assert that people ought to act in certain ways; i.e., that human rights, for example, ought to exist.

Variation is a requirement. Really? You don't know this?

Just because evolution can take place is not a reason to say that people ought to take actions toward that end.
 
What implications? Well, if you have no problems with an ethics that does not allow for freedom, equality, democracy, self-determination, freedom from slavery, freedom from torture, freedom of thought and religion, reproductive rights, etc., then such an ethics would be your cup of tea.

How did you arrive at this? Do secularists call for a loss of freedom, equality, democracy, or self-determination? Are secularists for the installment of slavery, torture? Especially since other animals do share in democracies.

The "is-ought" problem is central to the secular ethics project. You should probably read up on it if you're going to comment. In short, just because science says that certain things are is not necessarily a compelling reason to assert that people ought to act in certain ways; i.e., that human rights, for example, ought to exist.

I've read plenty of Hume, thanks. So let me ask, do you think human rights exist or do you think human rights ought to exist?

Just because evolution can take place is not a reason to say that people ought to take actions toward that end.

Yeah those damn vaccines and medical cures. Evolution can take place? No, evolution does take place. That had to have been an elementary mistake on your part. Really? It can? Is there some evolutionary switch somewhere?
 
How did you arrive at this? Do secularists call for a loss of freedom, equality, democracy, or self-determination? Are secularists for the installment of slavery, torture? Especially since other animals do share in democracies.

As a matter of fact, some secularists have at various times called for or supported all of these. Very flexible, those secular thinkers.


I've read plenty of Hume, thanks. So let me ask, do you think human rights exist or do you think human rights ought to exist?

For the religious it's fairly simple. Human rights exist because God says so. If for nothing else God exists to put such concepts at a level above human caprice.

Yeah those damn vaccines and medical cures. Evolution can take place? No, evolution does take place. That had to have been an elementary mistake on your part. Really? It can? Is there some evolutionary switch somewhere?

No, it's random. It might occur and might not. There is nothing that says it must occur at any particular time, in any particular direction, etc.
 
As a matter of fact, some secularists have at various times called for or supported all of these. Very flexible, those secular thinkers

Yeah, free thinking usually means a bit of variation. Hence the term "free." And just for a bit of equivocation (and clarification) the religious have called for such things, too.

For the religious it's fairly simple. Human rights exist because God says so. If for nothing else God exists to put such concepts at a level above human caprice.

Where does it say this? This isn't an interpretation is it? What do you have a right to, LD? What if "god" suddenly conceived that all "human rights" be taken away?

No, it's random. It might occur and might not. There is nothing that says it must occur at any particular time, in any particular direction, etc.

Talk Origins said:
"The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds, by random chance."

There is probably no other statement which is a better indication that the arguer doesn't understand evolution. Chance certainly plays a large part in evolution, but this argument completely ignores the fundamental role of natural selection, and selection is the very opposite of chance. Chance, in the form of mutations, provides genetic variation, which is the raw material that natural selection has to work with. From there, natural selection sorts out certain variations. Those variations which give greater reproductive success to their possessors (and chance ensures that such beneficial mutations will be inevitable) are retained, and less successful variations are weeded out. When the environment changes, or when organisms move to a different environment, different variations are selected, leading eventually to different species. Harmful mutations usually die out quickly, so they don't interfere with the process of beneficial mutations accumulating.

I'm sorry you don't know evolution by natural selection is a non-random process.
 
Eugenics is the social movement that seeks to improve the genetic features of human populations through selective breeding and sterilization.

American eugenics originated with the writings of Sir Francis Galton who studied the lineage of English peers and opined that selective breeding resulted in superior human stock. From its beginning American eugenics was closely associated with the idea of white supremacy, i.e., the superiority of the Nordic, Germanic and Anglo-Saxon peoples. It supported laws against immigration and mixed marriages as well as advocating forced sterilization of "undesirable" elements.

American eugenics predated the German eugenics movement and even inspired German ideas and laws about "race hygiene". For example, German race hygiene laws were based on eugenics laws in effect in California at the time. California eugenics advocates actively promoted the eugenics movement in Germany. The Rockefeller Foundation funded the founding of eugenics organizations in Germany.

Between the beginning of the century and the 1930s the eugenics movement in America received support and advocacy from a wide range of civic minded organizations including numerous charitable foundations, corporations, academic bodies, scientists, reformers, and professionals, many of them well renowned. Many feminist reformers, most famously Margaret Sanger, also advocated eugenics.

Many states enacted laws with an eugenics agenda in mind including laws against marriage of the feeble minded and epileptics. Little additional encouragement was needed for laws against mixed marriage.

Many states also passed laws mandating forced sterilization although in most states the laws were not strongly enforced, California being the big exception, where over 20,000 of the 60,000 forced sterilizations done in the nation were completed. North Carolina's system of legal eugenics was the most enthusiastic and continued to operate in part up until 1977.

Laws on immigration were changed to reflect a eugenics agenda.

Euthanasia was often advocated as a tool for eugenics and was sometimes used. On the whole, however, this method was marginalized.

As the 1930s wound to a close it was becoming increasingly clear what eugenics was becoming in Nazi Germany. Even before the revelations in the concentration camps at the end of the war eugenics was rapidly falling out of favor in the US. The Eugenics Laboratory at Cold Spring Harbor, for example, was closed in 1935 amid ethical and moral concerns. By the end of WWII eugenics had all but disappeared as a movement in the US, and eugenics laws were replace by degrees with laws against discrimination.

Amazon.com: A Century of Eugenics in America: From the Indiana Experiment to the Human Genome Era (Bioethics and the Humanities) (9780253222695): Paul A. Lombardo: Books

I am afraid the notion of IMPOSED eugenics is very much incompatible with the notion of a FREE society. Eugenics as often practiced is an anathema to freedom, as it embodies the antisythis, to the right to life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If eugenics is practiced here then we are no longer a free society.
 
I am afraid the notion of IMPOSED eugenics is very much incompatible with the notion of a FREE society. Eugenics as often practiced is an anathema to freedom, as it embodies the antisythis, to the right to life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If eugenics is practiced here then we are no longer a free society.

Well, I suppose it's a matter of degree. We already have laws against incest and first cousins marrying in many states. That's eugenics in action. Then there's a sort of socially applied eugenics, but it works in the opposite manner generally - for example, see Idiocracy. :mrgreen:
 
An article from the British Guardian Newspaper :shock:

guardian.png


Hitler's debt to America

The Nazis' extermination programme was carried out in the name of eugenics - but they were by no means the only advocates of racial purification. In this extract from his extraordinary new book, Edwin Black describes how Adolf Hitler's race hatred was underpinned by the work of American eugenicists

Edwin Black
The Guardian


Hitler's debt to America | World news | The Guardian


At 4am on November 12 1915, a woman named Anna Bollinger gave birth at the German-American Hospital in Chicago. The baby was somewhat deformed and suffered from extreme intestinal and rectal abnormalities, as well as other complications. The delivering physicians awakened Dr Harry Haiselden, the hospital's chief of staff. Haiselden came in at once. He consulted with colleagues. There was great disagreement over whether the child could be saved. But Haiselden decided the baby was too afflicted and fundamentally not worth saving. It would be killed. The method: denial of treatment.
Catherine Walsh, probably a friend of Bollinger's, heard the news and sped to the hospital to help. She found the baby, who had been named Allan, alone in a bare room. Walsh pleaded with Haiselden not to kill the baby by withholding treatment. "It was not a monster - that child," Walsh later told an inquest. "It was a beautiful baby. I saw no deformities." Walsh had patted the infant lightly. Allan's eyes were open, and he waved his tiny fists at her. Begging the doctor once more, Walsh tried an appeal to his humanity. "If the poor little darling has one chance in a thousand," she pleaded, "won't you operate to save it?"

Haiselden laughed at Walsh, retorting, "I'm afraid it might get well." He was a skilled and experienced surgeon, trained by the best doctors in Chicago. He was also an ardent eugenicist. Allan Bollinger duly died. An inquest was convened a few days later. Haiselden defiantly declared, "I should have been guilty of a graver crime if I had saved this child's life. My crime would have been keeping in existence one of nature's cruellest blunders." A juror shot back, "What do you mean by that?" Haiselden responded, "Exactly that. I do not think this child would have grown up to be a mental defective. I know it."

After tempestuous proceedings, the inquest ruled: "We believe that a prompt operation would have prolonged and perhaps saved the life of the child. We find no evidence from the physical defects that the child would have become mentally or morally defective." But they also decided that Haiselden was within his professional rights to decline treatment. No law compelled him to operate on the child. He was released unpunished, and efforts by the Illinois attorney general to indict him for murder were blocked by the local prosecutor. The doctor considered his legal vindication a powerful victory for eugenics. "Eugenics? Of course it's eugenics," he told one reporter.

Haiselden became an overnight celebrity, known for his many newspaper articles, his speaking tours and outrageous diatribes. In 1917, Hollywood came calling. The film was called The Black Stork. Written by Jack Lait, a reporter on the Chicago American, it was produced in Hollywood and given a massive national distribution and promotion campaign. Haiselden played himself in a fictionalised account of a eugenically mismatched couple whom he advises not to have children because they are likely to be defective. Eventually, the woman does give birth to a defective child, whom she then allows to die. The dead child levitates into the waiting arms of Jesus Christ. It was unbridled cinematic propaganda for the eugenics movement; the film played at movie theatres around the country for more than a decade.

National publicity advertised it as a "eugenic love story". One advertisement quoted Swiss eugenicist Auguste Forel's warning: "The law of heredity winds like a red thread through the family history of every criminal, of every epileptic, eccentric and insane person. Shall we sit still ... without applying the remedy?" In 1917, a display advertisement for The Black Stork read: "Kill Defectives, Save the Nation and See 'The Black Stork'." Various methods of eugenic euthanasia - including gassing the unwanted in lethal chambers - were a part of everyday American parlance and ethical debate some two decades before Nevada approved the first such chamber for criminal executions in 1921.

As America's eugenics movement gathered pace, it inspired a host of imitators. In France, Belgium, Sweden, England and elsewhere in Europe, cliques of eugenicists did their best to introduce eugenic principles into national life; they could always point to recent precedents established in the United States.

Germany was no exception. From the turn of the century, German eugenicists formed academic and personal relationships with the American eugenics establishment, in particular with Charles Davenport, the pioneering founder of the Eugenics Record Office on Long Island, New York, which was backed by the Harriman railway fortune. A number of other charitable American bodies generously funded German race biology with hundreds of thousands of dollars, even after the depression had taken hold.

Germany had certainly developed its own body of eugenic knowledge and library of publications. Yet German readers still closely followed American eugenic accomplishments as the model: biological courts, forced sterilisation, detention for the socially inadequate, debates on euthanasia. As America's elite were describing the socially worthless and the ancestrally unfit as "bacteria," "vermin," "mongrels" and "subhuman", a superior race of Nordics was increasingly seen as the answer to the globe's eugenic problems. US laws, eugenic investigations and ideology became blueprints for Germany's rising tide of race biologists and race-based hatemongers.

One such agitator was a disgruntled corporal in the German army. In 1924, he was serving time in prison for mob action. While there, he spent his time poring over eugenic textbooks, which extensively quoted Davenport, Popenoe and other American ethnological stalwarts. And he closely followed the writings of Leon Whitney, president of the American Eugenics Society, and Madison Grant, who extolled the Nordic race and bemoaned its "corruption" by Jews, Negroes, Slavs and others who did not possess blond hair and blue eyes. The young German corporal even wrote one of them fan mail.

In The Passing of the Great Race, Grant wrote: "Mistaken regard for what are believed to be divine laws and a sentimental belief in the sanctity of human life tend to prevent both the elimination of defective infants and the sterilisation of such adults as are themselves of no value to the community. The laws of nature require the obliteration of the unfit and human life is valuable only when it is of use to the community or race."

One day in the early 1930s, Whitney visited Grant to show off a letter he had just received from Germany, written by the corporal, now out of prison and rising in the German political scene. Grant could only smile. He pulled out his own letter. It was from the same German, thanking Grant for writing The Passing of the Great Race. The fan letter called Grant's book "his Bible". The man who sent those letters was Adolf Hitler.

Hitler displayed his knowledge of American eugenics in much of his writing and conversation. In Mein Kampf, for example, he declared: "The demand that defective people be prevented from propagating equally defective offspring is a demand of clearest reason and, if systematically executed, represents the most humane act of mankind. It will spare millions of unfortunates undeserved sufferings, and consequently will lead to a rising improvement of health as a whole."

Mein Kampf also displayed a familiarity with the recently passed US National Origins Act, which called for eugenic quotas. "There is today one state in which at least weak beginnings toward a better conception [of immigration] are noticeable. Of course, it is not our model German Republic, but [the US], in which an effort is made to consult reason at least partially. By refusing immigrants on principle to elements in poor health, by simply excluding certain races from naturalisation, it professes in slow beginnings a view that is peculiar to the People's State."

Hitler proudly told his comrades how closely he followed American eugenic legislation. "Now that we know the laws of heredity," he told a fellow Nazi, "it is possible to a large extent to prevent unhealthy and severely handicapped beings from coming into the world. I have studied with interest the laws of several American states concerning prevention of reproduction by people whose progeny would, in all probability, be of no value or be injurious to the racial stock."

Nor did Hitler fail to grasp the eugenic potential of gas and the lethal chamber, a topic that was already being discussed in German eugenic circles before Mein Kampf was published. Hitler, who had himself been hospitalised for battlefield gas injuries, wrote: "If at the beginning of the war and during the war 12,000 or 15,000 of these Hebrew corrupters of the people had been held under poison gas, as happened to hundreds of thousands of our best German workers in the field, the sacrifices of millions at the front would not have been in vain. On the contrary: 12,000 scoundrels eliminated in time might have saved the lives of a million real Germans, valuable for the future."

On January 30 1933, Hitler seized power. During the 12-year Reich, he never varied from the eugenic doctrines of identification, segregation, sterilisation, euthanasia, eugenic courts and eventually mass termination in lethal chambers. During the Reich's first 10 years, eugenicists across America welcomed Hitler's plans as the logical fulfilment of their own decades of research and effort. Indeed, they were envious as Hitler rapidly began sterilising hundreds of thousands and systematically eliminating non-Aryans from German society. This included the Jews. Ten years after Virginia passed its 1924 sterilisation act, Joseph Dejarnette, superintendent of Virginia's Western State Hospital, complained in the Richmond Times-Dispatch: "The Germans are beating us at our own game."

Most of all, American raceologists were proud to have inspired the strictly eugenic state the Nazis were constructing. In those early years of the Third Reich, Hitler and his race hygienists carefully crafted eugenic legislation modelled on laws already introduced across America and upheld by the supreme court. Nazi doctors, and even Hitler himself, regularly communicated with American eugenicists from New York to California, ensuring that Germany would scrupulously follow the path blazed by the US. American eugenicists were eager to assist.

This was particularly true of California's eugenicists, who led the nation in sterilisation and provided the most scientific support for Hitler's regime. In 1934, as Germany's sterilisations were accelerating beyond 5,000 per month, the California eugenic leader and immigration activist CM Goethe was ebullient in congratulating ES Gosney of the San Diego-based Human Betterment Foundation for his impact on Hitler's work. Upon his return in 1934 from a eugenic fact-finding mission in Germany, Goethe wrote Gosney a letter of praise. The foundation was so proud of Goethe's letter that they reprinted it in their 1935 annual report.

"You will be interested to know," Goethe's letter proclaimed, "that your work has played a powerful part in shaping the opinions of the intellectuals behind Hitler in this epoch-making program. Everywhere I sensed that their opinions have been tremendously stimulated by American thought, and particularly by the work of the Human Betterment Foundation.

"I want you, my dear friend, to carry this thought with you for the rest of your life, that you have really jolted into action a great government of 60 million people."

· Extracted from War Against the Weak: Eugenics and America's Campaign to Create a Master Race, by Edwin Black
 
Last edited:
It's not possible to come up with a purely secular and scientific refutation of eugenics. Some sense of the sanctity of human life has to come into the argument for that. Woe to all of us if such ideas carry no weight.

If Sir Francis Galton's opinion that selective breeding had produced in English aristocracy a 'superior human stock' is an example of the science of eugenics, it hardly seems necessary to refute it. There's a reason the 'upper-class twerp' became a cliche in Britain.
 
Eugenics is completely a oxymoron since one would have to be a idiot to support it. It only takes a second to think far enough ahead to see why eugenics would never actually work. It really was a primitive concept from a rather primitive time. Just imagine had eugenics actually been universally accepted how badly it would have gone with 1930's technology and biological understandings. They probably would have whipped out the human race. Most likely by encouraging genetic mutations that they had no understanding of. Things like cancer etc most likely would have been the outcome. Well at least for caucasians, the other so called races would have been fine.

No. extremely intelligent people can easily support selective breeding for humans. There might be lots of reasons to oppose it, but an intelligent outlook isn't one of them. Think about that the next time you dine. Uless you're eating wild game, probably every morsel has been developed through selective breeding and husbandry.
 
Back
Top Bottom