Is eugenics the logical result of Darwinism?

My reason for starting this thread is something Faith said in Message 104. That post is reproduced below for completeness: It was the last but one paragraph that got my attention.I have seen this claim repeatedly made by opponents of evolution and I think it is nonsense. As I have not had any formal biology education since my O levels (UK exams for 16 year olds a long time ago) I would appreciate the input of anyone who's a professional in that arena. All other views - for and against - will also be welcome of course !The problem with the view Faith expresses above is that it is categorically not the logical conclusion of an evolutionary viewpoint. As far as I can tell there are only three things that matter:

1. Live long enough to have offspring
2. Have more offspring than your peers (your offspring must live long enough to have their own offspring)
3. Repeat the two above ad infinitum - or until a really big meteor impacts

If you apply this to humans then the logical conclusion isn't that you select healthy and strong people, it's that you select people who have lots of brothers and sisters (and probably aunts and uncles).This is all simplified of course but I hope it conveys what I'm trying to get across for people to understand my point. I dispute that this was the philosphy that led to Nazism or that it is a direct logical conclusion from evolutionism. What led to Nazism (at least the part relevant to this discussion) was that the Nazi elite were racial fantasists who believed in the manifest destiny of the German people and their inherent superiority over all other racial groups. Allied to this was the centuries old tradition of anti-semitism throught Europe (along with discrimination against other groups such as the Romany gypsies).In my opinion the Nazi obsession with breeding blonde haired, blue eyed 'supermen' isn't related to any aspect of evolutionary theory. After thinking about it I regard it as an example of selective breeding. Essentially what the Nazis were doing is what dog and cat breeders etc. do. They were breeding to an arbitrarily defined breed standard. Absolutely true. Again, I don't think this was a result of evolutionary theory. Ultimately it reflects the tendency of intelligent and/or well educated people to think themselves superior to those who are not as intelligent or well educated.I guess Miscellaneous Topics in Creation/Evolution or Social Issues and Creation/Evolution?*Cowers and waits for the biologists to point out the obvious howling errors*

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.I'm promoting this with some trepidation. Let's be careful out there, people. This issue raises strong feelings, and I'd like you all to keep them in check please.This message has been edited by AdminSylas, 05-26-2005 07:54 AM

Eugenics essentially applies the idea of selective breeding to improve the stock to humans. The use of selective breeding preceded the idea of evolution and I see no reason why the application to humans requires any more than recognising that humans also inherit traits from their parents.Adding racist ideas to the mix - as was the case in Nazi Germany (and again these preceded evolution) is likely to encourage the idea. "Racial purity" in itself represents a form of selective breeding. It certainly seems to be a small extension to try to prevent embarrassing examples of "inferiority" to breed - even if such inferrority is not seen as evidence of "impure" ancestry.It could be argued that Mendelian genetics played a role. Under the idea of "blending" inheritance - accepted by Darwin - it could be argued that uncommon traits would simply be swamped by breeding unless they were reinforced by selection. Mendelian genetics supported a particulate theory of inheritance that wrecked that idea. On this line of thought Mendel is more to "blame" than Darwin.

1) I once saw a racist briefly interviewed on TV
His argument (paraphrased) was that a pedigree dog was more valuable than a mongrel.
Clearly he was thinking in terms of selective breeding and human values, not evolution - it would be not unusual for a mongrel to be more fit than a pedigree dog.2) Recently in this group, Jerry Don Bauer promoting his own brand of ID argued that humans were heading for a "mutational meltdown". If this were established as true (which is not proved) eugenics could be seen as a rational response (indeed in the absence of any alternative I would grudgingly accept the need for some measures in this line).

Darwinism is descriptive. It is about what happens.Eugenics is prescriptive, it states that we should perform certain actions to achieve an end considered desirable.To justify a prescriptive program the following points are important:1) The end must be genuinely desirable
2) We must reasonably expect the means to accomplish the end
3) The means must be acceptable - a price worth paying to achieve the end.A descriptive theory can only aid us on the second point. Thus anyone who argues that Darwinism implies eugenics has implicitly accepted the first and third. Yet surely the greatest contention is the third - that even if eugenics would work as planned, the means were too high a price.

Very good points PaulK. Thanks for the clarity.As far as point 2:It does appear that "logically" Darwinism can suggest eugenics. However, what we have learned in the last century is that the darwinian processes are so complex that we are unlikely in practice to achieve any eugenic ends. That is we know that eugenics is almost certainly not going to be successful. Based on that we logically arrive at not useing it.It comes down to our not knowing enough and, perhaps, never knowing enough to be able to use eugenics to accomplish any significant goals. That is, as you note, assuming that we have already, separately, accepted your points 1 and 3.

The Holocaust was an atrocity. I have often seen it related to evolution theory and so it might be reasonable to see if it was unique, or if there were other such examples that could be examined.If we look at history what we find is that the actions of Nazi Germany related to the Holocaust were unique only in relation to the technology available and used. There is a near continuous string of such actions involving nearly every civilization, culture and people. Such behavior was not unusual, only the efficiency, technology and particulars were unique to Germany and WWII.We can find examples of such behavior in the Bible, with God commanding the total distruction of a people for no reason other than their worship practices or simply to make room for a more favored Nation or people.In documented history we can look at the expulsion of the Jews from Christian Spain (surprisingly being rescued by a Muslim Caliph), the behavior of the Young Turks in the near total destruction of the Armenians, the total destruction of the American Indian civilizations by the Christian Spanish, Portuguese, French and British invaders and the later behavior of the SCOTUS in expelling the Cherokee Nations.All of these were of similar magnitude to the behavior of Nazi Germany and none are or can be attributed to evolutionary theory.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

they were breeding people to achieve purer nordic types whom many staunch nazis believed were descended from a greater alien race who landed on earth to conquer it (see that scary scenario thread).

I nearly made a point like this in my opening post.You only have to look at pedigree dog breeds to see what a mess the Kennel Club breed standards have made of them. Many of the smaller breeds have problems with their eyes, noses and teeth and the large breeds suffer from problems like arthritis and hip dysplasia. At least now some of the breeds are trying to address these problems - I used to have a girlfriend who had two Rottweilers and basically you can't breed them (and register the offspring as pedigree) unless they have been assessed for Hip Displaysia. That was twenty years ago so I don't know how succesful they have been.

---

Oops! Wrong Planet

You make a telling point jar.Sadly people have always slaughtered "others". This happened long before evolutionary theory - all that has happened is that the scale on which it can be done has increased.

---

Oops! Wrong Planet

As I recall from a very quick skim of Mein Kampf, Hitler believed that the Jews and other "lesser" races were descended from apes, but the Nordic races were specially created by God.He believed that he was aiding the work of the Creator by going against the natural evolution of the species.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

As implied by by earlier post there is no "evolutionary logic" as such that provides a compelling reason to resort to eugenics. Evolution does not tell us what we should do.There are some arguments which might seem more appealing because of their reference to evolution. One I have seen used is that if natural selection created us, then we should not go against it by permitting individuals to be selected out to breed.However while this argument can be seen as superficially convincing it can be easily countered. If it is accepted that our nature is the product of evolution then going against that by refusing to show compassion would be to go against evolution in another way.Even worse for the argument is that we are not some special product that should be used as the sole basis for judging natural selection. Natural selection does not share human values and following it is far from guaranteed to produce a result we would find desirable.No, at most evolution can help us make an informed choice. There is no sensible reason to simply try and mimic what would happen if we did not have modern medicine on the assumption that it is somehow "right".

An odd comment.If we think in those terms, then evolution can be said to have produced anything and everything human. So why pick out compassion particularly? Why not brutality?

I picked compassion because that was the supposed conflict identified in the material quoted in the first post Message 1. That in itself assumed that we were moved to help by compassion.

Actually, I think there might be a connection between Nazi ideas and TOE, historically speaking.I don't mean that there is a valid logical connection, but what happens is that new scientific ideas become popularized, and when this happens they are susceptible to all kinds of vulgarization, like "social Darwinism."This message has been edited by robinrohan, 05-26-2005 04:05 PM