Poll: Do you support Eugenics? (Poll)

Asita

Answer Hazy, Ask Again Later
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
2,865
493
88
Country
USA
Gender
Male
@orangeban: Oh, you saw Gattaca too? Very interesting movie.


Honestly, I've always thought the base concept of Eugenics was short-sighted. Interesting notion? Maybe. But it's flawed at its core. We might choose what we consider desireable traits, however we have little way of knowing how this selection will work out in the future. A given 'undesireable' trait can become a deciding survival factor in a new environment, or a given 'desireable' trait can become a hinderence in another environment (For instance: working eyes in an environment with no light are useless and only serve as an energy drain and a comparatively easily infected area). Additionally, even an apparently useless genetic trait can become a stepping stone to an environmental advantage (see Lenski's E.Coli experiment, where one mutation played off of an older (apparently ineffective) mutation, an interaction which allowed the bacteria culture to process citrate and gain a tremendous advantage in their environment).

It is because of these unforseeable consequences that I never did like the concept. Almost any criteria we'd choose would be almost arbitrary and as likely as not to blow up in our faces in the long run. Even assuming perfect knowledge (which we lack) of how any given mutation would act in concert with the rest of the genetic code, the concept would only really work if we had similarly perfect control of the environment as well.
 

Hagi

New member
Apr 10, 2011
2,741
0
0
CannibalRobots said:
Hagi said:
Hardcore_gamer said:
I see the knee-jerk reaction from the people who fallow the "if the nazis did it......." line of thought is well and alive in this thread.

Do you know what the nazis also did? They created the first anti-smoking campaign in history. Fanta was also invented in Nazi Germany. "If the nazis did it......" is not a valid argument.

Eugenics are not evil, they can merely be used to to bad things just like literally every other science ever made.

I also don't consider the right to have children a basic right, if the parent suffers from something really bad that would pass on to it's children then said person should not be allowed to have children. Period.

The same thing also goes for people who are very unlikely to be able to actually care for their children were they ever to have any.
Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says hi:

Universal Declaration of Human Rights said:
Article 16.
(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.
It's not evil because the Nazis did it. It's evil because it violates our human rights.
Breeding has nothing to do with marriage, people fucked before they got married, and they always have.

not to mention the fact that Eugenics is extremely difficult to do when people dont want to participate.
Founding a family has everything to do with breeding....
 

orangeban

New member
Nov 27, 2009
1,442
0
0
Asita said:
@orangeban: Oh, you saw Gattaca too? Very interesting movie.


Honestly, I've always thought the base concept of Eugenics was short-sighted. Interesting notion? Maybe. But it's flawed at its core. We might choose what we consider desireable traits, however we have little way of knowing how this selection will work out in the future. A given 'undesireable' trait can become a deciding survival factor in a new environment, or a given 'desireable' trait can become a hinderence in another environment (For instance: working eyes in an environment with no light are useless and only serve as an energy drain and a comparatively easily infected area). Additionally, even an apparently useless genetic trait can become a stepping stone to an environmental advantage (see Lenski's E.Coli experiment, where one mutation played off of an older (apparently ineffective) mutation, an interaction which allowed the bacteria culture to process citrate and gain a tremendous advantage in their environment).

It is because of these unforseeable consequences that I never did like the concept. Almost any criteria we'd choose would be almost arbitrary and as likely as not to blow up in our faces in the long run. Even assuming perfect knowledge (which we lack) of how any given mutation would act in concert with the rest of the genetic code, the concept would only really work if we had similarly perfect control of the environment as well.
Yeah, good answer, much like my thoughts, interesting take. Though tip, you should quote people, it makes it more obvious to the person you are replying to.
 

UnknownGunslinger

New member
Jan 29, 2011
256
0
0
Sneaky-Pie said:
[HEADING=3]What is Eugenics?[/HEADING]
Eugenics: The science of improving a human population by controlled breeding to increase the occurrence of desirable heritable characteristics. Developed largely by Francis Galton as a method of improving the human race.
Selective breeding or Eugenics is a flawed method that at best results in superficial cosmetic traits, and at worst in debilitating genetic diseases.
It wasn't even founded on proper science.
An actual way of improving mankind will soon be viable with the advent of microbiological mutagens, and selective gene enforcers.
This will be the way societies will become smarter, stronger, faster, more resilient to diseases, more creative or more conforming - the possibilities will be virtually endless and will depend solely on the societies using the technologies.
On the other hand Eugenics is, well Racist!!!
 

uzo

New member
Jul 5, 2011
710
0
0
Human rights are relative, not absolute. What we consider 'rights' have been considered 'privileges' by damned near every society since the birth of civilisation. We live in a time of remarkable peace and prosperity, utterly unknown to the tens-of-thousands of generations that came before us.

That aside, presuming society does not collapse in the next 15 years, genetic manipulation is only a matter of time. Whether you choose to call that eugenics-by-default is your prerogative. Selective breeding would be particularly difficult to enforce upon humanity. The desire to procreate is the driving force of all life, and you can't just say 'sorry, not you' without creating a brutally restrictive society - a society so restrictive that I'd venture to say it would stifle the 'Super Men' born of these eugenics experiments, whatever the superiority of their genes. For hundreds of thousands of years, there have been countless da Vincis, Archimedes', Beethovens, and Einsteins; the simple fact is that these potential geniuses have been crushed into obscurity by a) repressive societies discouraging progress b)Death due to disease or conflict c) lack of education.

The birth of a genius is not that uncommon - if you looked at the average IQ of the Escapists here I'm sure you'd see an upper-end skew - however, I am likewise certain that none of us are going to be da Vinci, Beethoven, or Archimedes, due to the complex play of society and development that gives someone the motivation and the 'divine spark' to USE their full potential.

Consider the population of the world at present - we should be DROWNING in astounding genius if it was purely based on genetics. It ain't. And hence, we ain't. Your genes are important, but your upbringing is what truly makes you. There is no gene for 'enlightened'.

EDIT: A simple example. Ask yourself this question: Are those more successful in society than me genetically superior? Do you think Bill Gates is a bundle of superman genes, passed down by fate to make him better than the rest of us? Or howsabout George Bush (*snort*)? Is he of better stock? Genetically superior? Hell no, I'm sure most of the people here are of just as good breeding as that moron - and if not, better breeding. You can see clearly now that genetics has piss all to do with success in today's society.

Now, if we lived in a post-apocalyptic wasteland a la Fallout 3 --> this is where your genes will count. For example - I'm a nut job survivalist, rugged yet educated. However, if the shit really did hit the fan, I'm an evolutionary dead-end. I'm short sighted. Game over. Some dip shit moron with a club foot, diabetes and a congenital heart defect - who has good eyesight - could out-survive me quite easily once I lose my glasses.
 

GrinningManiac

New member
Jun 11, 2009
4,090
0
0
Rule of Thumb

Anything supported, started, encouraged or included in/by the Nazi Government of the Third Reich will not, EVER, be considered fair game for discussion OR respectable opinions for the next HUNDRED YEARS at least.
 

Pandaman1911

Fuzzy Cuddle Beast
Jan 3, 2011
601
0
0
GWarface said:
Pandaman1911 said:
GWarface said:
Pandaman1911 said:
Absolutely. I think that eugenics should be enforced. I mean, hell, it works for nature, why shouldn't we make it work for us?
So, if you were in a family less fortunate than others.. Dad is a drunk, mom is a junkie and your sister is a slut.. But YOU are the white sheep among the black, so you choose to do something good for yourself and get yourself and education and a nice little family..

With eugenics You CANT have a nice little family because your family is "bad" and therefore YOU are "bad" and shouldnt be allowed to bring any children into the world..

You could be the next Messiah but your genes are fucked so you are fucked..

And dont say it works in nature.. Nothing in nature resembles eugenics..
Wrong on all counts, I'm afraid. If I don't have any negative traits, such as the alcoholism, or the trait that makes me easily addicted, if I'm an unspoiled gene pool of nothing but good things- then I'd be allowed to reproduce, because I have all the good genes, obviously. They don't check my parents, they check ME, because only half of each of my progenitor's genes are mine. And from your description of the situation, I must have gotten the good ones.

Also, yes, there is such a thing as eugenics in nature, it's called "natural selection". Only the fittest of creatures survive to reproduce, passing on superior genetic material. We're just replacing "the unfit to breed get eaten by predators" with "the unfit to breed are forbidden by the government from reproducing". And it will cut down on overpopulation, too. Less people breeding, fewer babies.
Now its even more annoying that i cant find that old Us pro-eugenics movie, because it is EXACTLY as i say.. If you are from a bad family, it doesnt really matter how good a person you are.. you have the "BAD GENES" from your parents, therefore you are bad..

I know it sounds fucking insane, but thats how it was and i really think it would still be like that if brought back..

And i still cant see how you can compare "animals eating other animals" with "people getting forced sterilised by The Man because he says they are inferior"
But i do like that you compare the government with predators, with that you are spot-on..

Plus, "overpopulation" isnt a problem and never has been.. Food distribution is..
No, no, no, man. You're not hearing me. They don't check your parents' genes, that doesn't mean jack, they check YOUR genes, because if half my father's genes are shit, and half my mother's genes are shit, and I get the two halves of them that AREN'T shit, I'm perfectly fine with warped and imperfect parents.

Each gamete cell, sperm for the male, egg for the female, contains exactly a half set of chromosomes, which varies from cell to cell. So from imperfect parents, a perfect spermatozoon could meet with a perfect ovum and produce a perfect child. So if you're cracking down on this sort of thing, you check the potential breeders, not their family history.

And animals that are weaker being picked off is a sort of more natural way of preventing the infirm from breeding. Imagine if we had a creature that flew at a set speed, and ate people. All the fit people would be able to run away, survive, have sex, and reproduce, carrying their "fit" genes, whereas the infit, disabled, and whatnot would get eaten... and NOT be able to reproduce, because they'd be dead.

And come on, the government isn't "evil", kid, that's the biggest and widest-used load by all the Greenpeace tie-dye types.
 

Hagi

New member
Apr 10, 2011
2,741
0
0
CannibalRobots said:
Hagi said:
CannibalRobots said:
Hagi said:
Hardcore_gamer said:
I see the knee-jerk reaction from the people who fallow the "if the nazis did it......." line of thought is well and alive in this thread.

Do you know what the nazis also did? They created the first anti-smoking campaign in history. Fanta was also invented in Nazi Germany. "If the nazis did it......" is not a valid argument.

Eugenics are not evil, they can merely be used to to bad things just like literally every other science ever made.

I also don't consider the right to have children a basic right, if the parent suffers from something really bad that would pass on to it's children then said person should not be allowed to have children. Period.

The same thing also goes for people who are very unlikely to be able to actually care for their children were they ever to have any.
Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says hi:

Universal Declaration of Human Rights said:
Article 16.
(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.
It's not evil because the Nazis did it. It's evil because it violates our human rights.
Breeding has nothing to do with marriage, people fucked before they got married, and they always have.

not to mention the fact that Eugenics is extremely difficult to do when people dont want to participate.
Founding a family has everything to do with breeding....
You

Don't

Need

To

Be

Married

To

Have

Children.

Plenty of people are unmarried parents, this is nothing strange.
It doesn't require you to be married....

It says all men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion have the right to marry and found a family.

That means:

All men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion have the right to marry.

AND

All men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion have the right to found a family.

It's basic English.

Just like when I say that you have the right to vote and drink at 18 doesn't mean that you can only vote while drinking and only drink while voting.
 

Ensiferum

New member
Apr 24, 2010
587
0
0
I absolutely do not support eugenics. Even on a purely scientific level the idea is faulty because there's always a chance that a child can be born with defects regardless of how "pure" their genetic history is. Aside from that it's wrong to begin with because castrating people with defects is inhumane, though I should think that's obvious.
 

Moonlight Butterfly

Be the Leaf
Mar 16, 2011
6,157
0
0
capper42 said:
I don't believe selective breeding should be applied to the human race, it's morally wrong. Having children is one of the most basic human rights.
Pretty much this. Also if someone has a genetic disorder THEY should be the one to decide whether they have children or not.
 

Haukur Isleifsson

New member
Jun 2, 2010
234
0
0
I don't think it is a good Idea in general. But in some very specific cases I could support voluntary "eugenics". That is encouraging people with very serious hereditary defects not to repopulate. In some cases it might even be considered child abuse to willingly doom a child to a short and/or painful life for the sake of reproduction.
 

ShadowsofHope

Outsider
Nov 1, 2009
2,623
0
0
xitel said:
I absolutely support it, without a doubt. Have for many many years, as the IRC folks can attest to. Modern Medicine and science has destroyed natural selection for humanity. We let the sick and damaged people breed, because it's "humane" to do so. As soon as anyone suggests an alternative, they get beaten over the head by the hammer of society and pushed off to the side. I say, if we have the ability to improve the human genome, then we should do it. If something is beneficial, encourage the spread of it through the gene pool. If something is detrimental, weed it out of the gene pool. We do it to our crops, our food, our pets, so why not do it to ourselves? I'm not recommending extermination, mind, but selective breeding, absolutely.
You sir, have a preschool understanding of natural selection. Natural selection never stops acting, simply now with our medicines and technology, natural selection is not as obvious in it's influence of society. The sick and the damaged in our society are a very small minority, most of which do not actually get the chance to reproduce due to complications with the reproductive organs (or any vital organs in general), or excessive pain. Also, passing on those conditions to their children, if they so manage, does also rely on factoring in if any of such sicknesses or damages were genetically hereditary or not.

In other words, someone is attempting to be "edgy" by suggesting eugenics to "save" something that does not need to ever be "saved", because it cannot be destroyed or stopped (slowed, yes, but not stopped). And, well, let's be honest. Natural selection as it exists in nature does not have a mind of it's own to be infected by human bias' and short term fixation, so I do believe I will throw my bet in with it, rather than edgy teenagers whom think they understand genetics.
 

SinisterGehe

New member
May 19, 2009
1,456
0
0
Veritasiness said:
SinisterGehe said:
It can be used for good, but it will most likely used for bad things. It is a great idea only if we got a model/template of a "desirable" or a "perfect" human that we are trying to achieve. Just an example would be that ancient Greece strong naturally muscular men were the ideal humans. In African tribes the idea human is Obese woman and tall agile men. My ideal human being is blond haired naturally strong bit under 180cm. personality: Logical, rational, calm, hard working, non-religious and sexually discreet (Basically sexual interest for breeding purposes not for pleasure). I am sure yours differences from that a lot. In order for us to use eugenics well and for good would mean we would all need to share the same opinions about what is a "human being" in it's essence and appearance.
But we are all human beings. Difference, and different view of "perfection," are inherent within is. There is NO perfect human being. No man is without sin, and I don't just mean from a religious standpoint - we all have vices, angers, loves, hates, and different things about us which are both ugly and beautiful. If you take that away, you're not aiding evolution, you're halting it.
Well... Yeah. With Positive energy there is Negative energy, +10 -10 = 0.
By perfection I do not refer to a human being that would only possess positive traits, we need the negative traits, just like: to light exist as an idea, it needs shadow to point out what it is now, therefor describing what it is.
But I am not used to describe flaws in a picture in order to point out what it is. By this I mean I describe the positive traits of my "perfect" human in order to paint a picture of what it is, not what it isn't, it has it flaws indeed, it is human after all, human a bipolar beings, we have negative and positive, shadow and a light, real world and a utopia.

If we have dinnerware made of glass, china, metal and plastic, but I only allow the use of metal dinnerware, do I destroy the variety of dinnerware from existence, no. I merely limit the base of the dinnerware to metal, but this same metal can be shaped and molded in to any form and variety. If we select a certain base for a new humanity spring on doesn't destroy the variety of the humanity, it merely directs it to a certain direction. Humans' DNA changes, varies and every generation has mix of traits inherited from the past. The variety doesn't disappear it merely changes direction. We can not remove negative traits, they will emerge on every being that exists, even ideas have negative sides and they do not even exist. I am not denying my "perfect" would miss it's negative energy, I just chose not to mention them.

But one thing is a fact, we possess traits from our past that are no longer required and some that are even in our way to evolve to something more advanced*. (* I do not believe that humankind has reached it's peak, yet or ever.)
 
Mar 9, 2010
2,722
0
0
orangeban said:
But here in Scotland we have the SNP (Scottish National Party)! Who's big want I don't like... but luckily neither does anyone else and everything else they want is pretty sensible (and please don't be confused folks, the SNP are no at all like the BNP, they are in fact very liberal and very socialist.)
That sounds like my kind of political party. I wish socialism was more popular in English government, all the parties are too right wing for my liking. What's this big want that nobody wants?
 

UnknownGunslinger

New member
Jan 29, 2011
256
0
0
@TheIronRuler
The Gattaca scenario (truly a great film :p) can only really exist in a few types of societies.
For instance America (doesn?t have Universal healthcare) is the type of society that can develop such a "Gattaca" culture.
Do you really think this could happen in Europe for example?
The realities are that in time the costs will go down.
It's only natural that the rich and powerful will be on the forefront of such technology, but in a few years the advantage gap will go down as the technology itself becomes cheaper and more viable.
And the gap will start to close, until it's no more different than the advantages the rich possess today over the middleclass!
And even if some societies do not provide the technology free to its citizens because of some misguided capitalistic ideals it by no means spells doom to civilization itself.
The world is a diverse place. Some cultures will more readily try to introduce such technology to their societies.
Others might turn it down - for instance some Middle Eastern Nations.
Some might even use it to more easily control their citizens - South Korea and other Rogue nations.

It's a technology that will be so versatile that its uses will depend solely on the societies that use them.
And this is bio engineering not Eugenics.
Eugenics or selective breeding is only useful if you want to breed cute puppies will health problems :p
It?s absolutely retarded when done by humans, and honestly ? Racist!
So lets not confuse the two.
 

GWarface

New member
Jun 3, 2010
472
0
0
Pandaman1911 said:
GWarface said:
Pandaman1911 said:
GWarface said:
Pandaman1911 said:
Absolutely. I think that eugenics should be enforced. I mean, hell, it works for nature, why shouldn't we make it work for us?
So, if you were in a family less fortunate than others.. Dad is a drunk, mom is a junkie and your sister is a slut.. But YOU are the white sheep among the black, so you choose to do something good for yourself and get yourself and education and a nice little family..

With eugenics You CANT have a nice little family because your family is "bad" and therefore YOU are "bad" and shouldnt be allowed to bring any children into the world..

You could be the next Messiah but your genes are fucked so you are fucked..

And dont say it works in nature.. Nothing in nature resembles eugenics..
Wrong on all counts, I'm afraid. If I don't have any negative traits, such as the alcoholism, or the trait that makes me easily addicted, if I'm an unspoiled gene pool of nothing but good things- then I'd be allowed to reproduce, because I have all the good genes, obviously. They don't check my parents, they check ME, because only half of each of my progenitor's genes are mine. And from your description of the situation, I must have gotten the good ones.

Also, yes, there is such a thing as eugenics in nature, it's called "natural selection". Only the fittest of creatures survive to reproduce, passing on superior genetic material. We're just replacing "the unfit to breed get eaten by predators" with "the unfit to breed are forbidden by the government from reproducing". And it will cut down on overpopulation, too. Less people breeding, fewer babies.
Now its even more annoying that i cant find that old Us pro-eugenics movie, because it is EXACTLY as i say.. If you are from a bad family, it doesnt really matter how good a person you are.. you have the "BAD GENES" from your parents, therefore you are bad..

I know it sounds fucking insane, but thats how it was and i really think it would still be like that if brought back..

And i still cant see how you can compare "animals eating other animals" with "people getting forced sterilised by The Man because he says they are inferior"
But i do like that you compare the government with predators, with that you are spot-on..

Plus, "overpopulation" isnt a problem and never has been.. Food distribution is..
No, no, no, man. You're not hearing me. They don't check your parents' genes, that doesn't mean jack, they check YOUR genes, because if half my father's genes are shit, and half my mother's genes are shit, and I get the two halves of them that AREN'T shit, I'm perfectly fine with warped and imperfect parents.

Each gamete cell, sperm for the male, egg for the female, contains exactly a half set of chromosomes, which varies from cell to cell. So from imperfect parents, a perfect spermatozoon could meet with a perfect ovum and produce a perfect child. So if you're cracking down on this sort of thing, you check the potential breeders, not their family history.

And animals that are weaker being picked off is a sort of more natural way of preventing the infirm from breeding. Imagine if we had a creature that flew at a set speed, and ate people. All the fit people would be able to run away, survive, have sex, and reproduce, carrying their "fit" genes, whereas the infit, disabled, and whatnot would get eaten... and NOT be able to reproduce, because they'd be dead.

And come on, the government isn't "evil", kid, that's the biggest and widest-used load by all the Greenpeace tie-dye types.
Notice anything about "BAD GENES"? Yeah, its not really the genes they care about..
You will have an "predisposition" to whatever bad thing your family is doing and therefore you will be sterilised.. Thats how it was..
And it can easily be enforced with phoney science.. Like how it was..

I dont wanna start a fight over the government being evil, it doesnt sound like you will change your mind..
But im sure you will wake up, when you are ready.. Especially since you are from the States..

Ooh, and dont call me kid.. Im older than you..
 

Kyle 2175

New member
Jan 7, 2010
109
0
0
I don't support eugenics, at all. As a libertarian any sort of absurdly controlling thing like this angers me, and eugenics in particular is just plain freaking ridiculous. Eugenics is choosing who people can breed with! You like that girl there? Well, sorry about that, she's too good/bad for you so you have to do this one. How could you support this? You're basically saying you would like to have who you can mate with regulated. That is, if you're sexual and not gay, you want to have who you can have sex with chosen by the person who's controlling the eugenics. Freedom, people. Don't you like it?
 

oktalist

New member
Feb 16, 2009
1,603
0
0
Silenttalker22 said:
It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is the most adaptable to change. Charles Darwin
He never actually said that.

Yokai said:
From an evolutionary standpoint it makes perfect sense, but it's really about as unethical as it could possibly be.
Probably the most well known Darwinian alive today, Richard Dawkins, put it better than I could: "There is no inconsistency in favouring Darwinism as an academic scientist while opposing it as a human being; any more than there is inconsistency in explaining cancer as an academic doctor while fighting it as a practicing one... Evolution gave us a brain... capable of understanding [how we evolved], of deploring the moral implications and of fighting against them."

Evolution is cruel, clumsy and wasteful. We need not copy it.

GWarface said:
Did you know that Darwin was really into stuff like this?
No, he wasn't. Though he was frequently misquoted by eugenicists looking for support for their own ideas.

He explicitly disagreed with it, in The Descent Of Man: [font color=gray]"if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil. We must therefore bear the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely that the weaker and inferior members of society do not marry so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage, though this is more to be hoped for than expected."[/font] So he admitted there might be bad effects caused by less fit individuals reproducing, but that it would be wrong to intervene against it, and that natural selection will continue to be a positive influence on the gene pool.

Yeah, "survival of the fitest" didnt come from nowhere..
No, it was coined by Herbert Spencer, and adopted by Darwin in the 5th edition of On The Origin Of Species. Fitness in the context of natural selection means best adapted to survive in the present environment, so survival of the fittest is essentially nothing more than a tautology.

GWarface said:
Darwin writes in The Descent of Man that "a most important obstacle in civilized countries to an increase in the number of men of a superior class" is the tendency of society?s "very poor and reckless", who are "often degraded by vice", to increase faster than "the provident and generally virtuous members".
I see nothing supportive of eugenics in those very selective quotes, not even anything about genetics or race, just socio-economic class. Do you have the full quote, by any chance?

He used terms like civilised peoples and savage races, not to imply that either was intrinsically better than the other, but simply as straightforward descriptive terms to differentiate between them. Those were simply the words that people used in his time to refer to the corresponding groups of people.

He disagreed with the prevailing opinion that blacks, whites, aboriginies and asians were different species. He thought there was no intrinsic difference between races. He thought nothing of sharing physical intimacies with, for example, a black person.

It would've been very easy, though, at that time, to fall into thinking that black people were in some way less intelligent, because many Africans at the time happened to be at an earlier stage in their social-cultural development. Darwin made the point that all civilisations have been arrived at through an intermediate stage of barbarism, white Europeans being no exception.

He did say that the white man would probably wipe out the savages, but that was merely a predition, not a hope. Like when you say it looks like it's going to rain.

Its fun how people forget (or arent told) that forced sterilising was a pretty big deal in the US in the 20's and 30's.. They ONLY stopped doing it because Hitler made it look bad..
Hitler made forced sterilisation look bad? No, it's forced sterilisation, it's obviously bad. You don't need Hitler to tell you that.

It's fun how people forget that most of the western world was pro-Nazi right up until the point when they realised that they themselves might be threatened by German expansion.

orangeban said:
Samurai Silhouette said:
GWarface said:
Show me that place in nature where animals decide wich species has to die and wich species is the "pure ones"
Simple. Male lions fighting over females. Strongest one wins and passes on favorable genes.
That is different to eugenics.
Samurai wasn't suggesting it was the same. He was just replying to Warface's inquiry.

GWarface said:
Since when does Strength = favorable genes? So a strong lion when a genetic desease would get us where?
The lion that wins the fight over who gets to reproduce has got fitter genes, almost by definition.

If it's got a disease then it's not going to be strong. If it's strong then it's not got a relevant disease. They are effectively the same. You seem confused.

Sorry dude, Eugenics and horny lions are not the same..
Eugenics is the attempt to artifically augment or assist natural selection. It's not the same but it is inspired by a misguided reading of the theory of evolution. The perception of the eugenicist is that modern medicine is subverting evolution by allowing too many unfit people to reproduce and therefore evolution needs to be given a helping hand.