Posted on 06/13/2007 11:59:38 AM PDT by LUMary
Justice Learned Hand, Buck V. Bell, 1927: “...three generations of imbeciles are enough.”
Evidently, the Discovery Institute opposes forced sterilization of hereditary incompetents. In a welfare state like ours, what does that mean for the future?
Darwin is responsible for his contribution to eugenics. Jesus paid the price for our sins, but he did not cause them. Your comparison makes no sense.
Anonymous? How do you know that my name isn't really Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus?
My sarcastic side, however, is incapable of letting anyone slide when they groan at particular varieties of threads as they are reading and commenting on the very thread they groan at.
I wasn't really groaning about another evolution thread. I was attempting to gauge the mood on the board, in general.
Darwin is responsible for his contribution to eugenics.
__________
What exactly is Darwin’s contributions to eugenics? I’m sure that you’ll cite the appropriate sections of Darwin’s writings.
Eugenics is prescriptive. Darwin’s theory of evolution is descriptive. I have trouble getting from one to the other. But I’m sure you’ll let me know the error of my ways.
Which society is more likely to survive?
The society that believes the survival of the fittest individuals is most important? Thus they destroy others within their group that don’t measure-up to some arbitrary ideal. Don’t bother to help others in their group since they should be able to fend for themselves. Believe immunizations perpetuate a streak of weak genes through the population.
Or the society that believes the survival of the group is most important? Believe that all individuals can contribute to the group in some way. Believes the group is more likely to survive because of its variation of traits and genes. Knows that those who die due to disease or accident may have been able to save them in the future.
Philosophically: not in actuality (when you take darwin’s theory applied to human beings): it means that some humans have to be “less developed”-Inferior*/- than others, that lends credence to some are better than others, which certain unethical people have used throught the 20th to “justify” their murder that includes the Nazis, and Eugenicists. Darwin is not directly responsible for these (and neither do most darwinists justify these heinous acts), but the truth is there that the philopical under-pinnings were taken from Darwinian thought applied to humanity.
Society #2 though the differences between the two aren’t quite the way you label them in the first sentence. Both societies actually believe in survival of the fittest or at least evolutionary science (society 2 by understanding variations in DNA clearly has a grasp of evolution), the real difference is society 1 is eugenic and wants to drive evolution, and society 2 is Darwinian and is just allowing a natural process to do what it does.
Of course Darwin isn’t the only one to have his philosphy misapplied to decide a certain people are inferior. It’s happened over and over again throughout history, it’s the rallying cry excuse behind the aggressive side of most wars. When push comes to shove most encouragements for invasion boil down to “they don’t deserve what they have because they aren’t as cool as us”.
And, in support of eugenics: “Seven generations of imbeciles is enough.” (Oliver Wendell Holmes)
I don’t know what more you want from me. If his actual contributions (some of which are listed on this very thread) aren’t sufficient, maybe you want a quote from Darwin using the word “eugenics” and explaining in detail how to practice it. You might as well ask for a detailed wiring diagram of a modern car, drawn up by none other than Ben Franklin.
Darwin’s contributions to eugenics are not in any way comparable to Jesus Christ’s contribution to the salvation of mankind.
I see your point, but look at the full title of Darwin’s book:
On the Origin of Species
by Means of Natural Selection,
or the Preservation of Favoured Races
in the Struggle for Life
I think you can see just from the title (i.e. ‘favoured races’) that human eugenics could be a tempting implementation of Darwinian ideas for some people. I’m not saying that Darwin actively encouaraged human engineering, but he discusses at length how animal breeding went about producing improvements in various species. It doesn’t take much of an imagination to move from animal breeding to human breeding. After all, doesn’t Darwinian theory demonstrate that we are all “animals”.
So, my point is that Darwinian theory lends itself to human eugenics - maybe not necessarily so, but it is not a stretch to see how it could be used that way. On the other hand, it is not possible for Jesus’ teachings, taken as a whole, to be used as a defense or motivation to commit the atrocities done in His name. The acts would be completely at odds with His character and moral teachings (as in the Sermon on the Mount).
“I think you may be putting some words in Darwin’s mouth. I don’t think he was promoting the idea that there was no God.”
I’m not saying that Darwin himself did, but there is no denying that many Darwinists today are “naturalistic” evolutionists - that is, they believe that all that exists occured by a natural process - not from some imaginary diety. That idea is a logical outcome of Darwin’s theory. It may not have been his intent, but that has been the overall far reaching result.
So, my point is that eugenics, from a naturalistic evolutionary point of view, should be morally acceptable because in the naturalistic worldview, there is no God, therefore there are no moral absolutes to hinder any action. In fact, morality is irrelevant and has no meaning.
Sure if the idiots ignored the words “by Means of Natural Selection” they could grab onto the words “Favored Races” as an excuse for their bad ideas. Of course if their Jewish they could take the idea of being the Chosen People and run right off the cliff with it too. Just because people take one phrase out of context and turn it into an excuse for their own stupidity doesn’t mean the core idea of the writing that contains that phrase is bad or that the writers was a bad person. Look at all the stupid stuff liberals have done with the Commerce Clause in the last 40 years, does that mean the Constitution is bad and the Founders should be held responsible?
Bad people take perfectly good ideas and screw them up, that’s how you know they’re bad people. They do it with Darwin, they do it with the Constitution, they do it with the Bible, they do it with Wealth of Nations, they do it with mediocre Beatles songs, they just do it.
It’s not possible to take Darwin’s teachings as a WHOLE to get an excuse to commit atrocities either. That’s why the people that commit atrocities using Darwinism, or Jesus, as an excuse edit.
How so.
If human consciousness is itself a direct result of natural processes, then it follows that any activity, including human intelligence and intent, is also the result of natural processes.
How then can eugenics be considered a foreign agent or mechanism within the very system that created it?
Read the rest of the sentence.
Thank you for signing up in preparation for posting this thread.
You do know you are gonna be mocked, don’t you...
...and deservedly so.
The only question that remains unanswered is...
...WHO were you in a prior life?
“...declaring with our limited knowledge which section of humanity is better and more deserving of survival, the problem is the eugenicists might be wrong. The proper Darwinian approach to improving humanity is a species is to not, just do your thing and let nature take it’s course, eugenicists pervert the concept for their own twitsted purpose.”
Bump
Since you ping’d me, and are obviously interested, care to take a shot at answering the question?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.