Would eugenics still be demonized if it wasn't associated with nazis?
Honestly, eugenics is a pretty sweet deal. Natural selection without that long Galapagos island process.
But Nazis of course took it too far.
Do you think we would feel the same way about eugenics being a horrible, racist ideal if not for nazism and their experiments/overall outlook towards a pure race?
Not saying I agree with breeding out races, just certain genes. As a disclaimer.
But Nazis of course took it too far.
Do you think we would feel the same way about eugenics being a horrible, racist ideal if not for nazism and their experiments/overall outlook towards a pure race?
Not saying I agree with breeding out races, just certain genes. As a disclaimer.
Comments11
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In
For one, I seriously doubt you would ever be able to fully remove race from the equation. To me, the idea of giving someone else THAT much control over others is just wrong. Who determines who is fit to breed, and what criteria? Will it be purely genetic, or will there be a social concern as well(money, religious belief, political alignment)? The whole thing is just so ripe for abuse it is one of those things I don't think should ever be done, and that is in addition to what others have said about needing a diverse genetic pool.
No. It is profoundly a bad thing. And this has nothing to do with Nazis. Read this book by Chesterton, written years before anyone knew what a Nazi even is.
Reasons why eugenics are not a good idea, that are not in that book: A large and diverse gene pool is very important. Straightening out DNA, erradicating genes we don't like, even if they are without a doubt a bad thing, can have very dire consequences for the human species in the long run. We simply cannot predict what the future holds, and what DNA we could need to cope with that.
Reasons why eugenics are not a good idea, that are not in that book: A large and diverse gene pool is very important. Straightening out DNA, erradicating genes we don't like, even if they are without a doubt a bad thing, can have very dire consequences for the human species in the long run. We simply cannot predict what the future holds, and what DNA we could need to cope with that.
"Honestly, eugenics is a pretty sweet deal."
This sounds like a dumb and edgy thing to say. Sweet deal? Perhaps for the people who are lucky enough to have been born the preferred race. Royalty did something like eugenics. They inbred because of some delusional idea of having purity within the royal blood line.
This sounds like a dumb and edgy thing to say. Sweet deal? Perhaps for the people who are lucky enough to have been born the preferred race. Royalty did something like eugenics. They inbred because of some delusional idea of having purity within the royal blood line.
I would have to agree with UnknownSingularity on this. People would still be against it, because a lot of people have unfavorable genes, and it would scare them. I mean we can get deeper into it. A person, or a living thing, is driven to pass on their genes, good or bad, but to pass on their own genes. Favoring the collective over the individual would act against the individual survival and procreation drives in people.
But removing the racial bullshit, I think it would be pretty awesome in a way. I think we as a society have moved in the opposite direction, since medicine has made it possible for those with weaker genetics to pass on their genes. But then again that allows for more combinations, and mutations, so who is to say really.
But removing the racial bullshit, I think it would be pretty awesome in a way. I think we as a society have moved in the opposite direction, since medicine has made it possible for those with weaker genetics to pass on their genes. But then again that allows for more combinations, and mutations, so who is to say really.
Which genes?
Not saying I agree with breeding out races, just certain genes. As a disclaimer.
I can't agree with that. To take an example, sickle cell anemia is a genetic disorder that happens to provide resistance to malaria. Malaria kills, sickle cell anemia kills too of course. With sickle cell anemia, they survive malaria.
Which is worse? A population that can survive malaria outbreaks, or one that doesn't get sick until decimated by malaria? I'm not sure I know how to make that decision.
I can't agree with that. To take an example, sickle cell anemia is a genetic disorder that happens to provide resistance to malaria. Malaria kills, sickle cell anemia kills too of course. With sickle cell anemia, they survive malaria.
Which is worse? A population that can survive malaria outbreaks, or one that doesn't get sick until decimated by malaria? I'm not sure I know how to make that decision.
Let's face it most people are losers, and the idea of a superior human being created to compete with them horrifies them 
I also believe it would be super cool to created better humans and to develop technologies to better ourselves.
I also believe it would be super cool to created better humans and to develop technologies to better ourselves.
Isn't the truth though that most people who buy into purity themselves not really people anyone would want to be. Most white supremacists for example are hardly anything to write home about.
Nazi's or not people of today would still be against it. Human empathy can go pretty far and most people would rather see someone live as a burden than die in the name of taking a load off society. It doesn't make sense from a biological point of view, but a lot of what we do don't make sense compared to what other species do.
I wouldn't advocate killing someone who already exists either, but I'm for aborting of unborn babies likely to show lifelong crippling physical or mental defects.
I wouldn't advocate killing someone who already exists either, but I'm for aborting of unborn babies likely to show lifelong crippling physical or mental defects.