Believe it or not, most Nazi doctors were enthusiastic supporters of Hitler's programs. The human detritus would be coldly dealt with in order for the Master Race to flourish. They fancied being on the front lines in bringing about a positive future as they envisioned it. The ends justify the means, and all that...
Our doctors turned a blind eye to this evil to maintain employment. Absolutely despicable.
The Nazis were devils, no doubt. But other nations were to some extent in the same boat. If you've done any reading about Eugenics, it was a popular movement in the early 20th century, to include the USA. Of course we never took things to the lengths the Nazis did, but we certainly did our share of sterilizations, in some places, the programs continued until the 1970s. Americans like to ride on their moral high horse but alas, we too have a few skeletons in the national closet.
And the really horrifying truth? At its core Eugenics is correct: It is NOT in the "herd's" (humanity's) long-term interest to allow the "less fit" to reproduce. And yes, the very ill, the old, the weak and the unfit are a drain on resources and thus should be "culled." This is "correct" in the natural sense, that Nature demands survival of the fittest.
None of this is news, it has been well known to scientists and ethicists for hundreds of years. Nietzsche wrote about it in the 19th century; his arguments were along the lines that democracy was the (many) weak organizing to protect against the (few) strong, ultimately producing a tame, domesticated citizen. In places he explicitly argues the weak should be culled.
Please observe I'm not defending Eugenics in any moral sense. Other than the most humane forms of it ("positive" eugenics) which would be, say, voluntary mating by consenting people, virtually any other types very quickly wades from the relatively firm ground of the merely morally dubious (mandatory birth control, anyone?) to the muck of forced sterilizations, ultimately into the quicksand of extermination.
We now return you to your preferred, Disney-esque fantasy world where all animals are herbivores and peace, happiness, butterflies and rainbows are the norm!
I support eugenics as an ideal. Why wouldn't we want more people to be strong, healthy, brave, intelligent, good-looking, honorable, and otherwise gifted, than the reverse?
The clinker is that Eugenicists usually wanted this program to be carried out by the government. I was disabused of this hope upon reading 1984 when I was a college freshman, and realized that if the government was running it, they would inevitably breed mediocre conformists instead, because those are the people they can rule over.
If the government is doing it, the result will be domestication. We eugenicists are hound dogs who aspire to be wolves, but the government would turn us into pugs, or toy poodles, or perhaps those little dogs the Aztecs used to eat.
I think Nietzsche had a sense of this. His concept of the "superman" was the eugenic ideal, but in contempt of government, absent Darwinian logic, and wrapped in the mantle of tragedy.
I've also heard that women are natural eugenicists in their search for a husband. They should be left to follow their instincts, and let the men each pursue his own "superman". That is the real eugenic method that we have always practiced, and the only one that actually works.
Women USED to be “natural eugenicists”...They, like other mammals, used to look for the fittest mate, the one most likely to provide shelter and safety and a good life for her and her children. Unfortunately, with the so-called “safety net” of our social welfare system, the government has become the provider for many women and their children. Many women are now WILLING to “mate” with sub-par men that are unwilling to work OR protect their progeny. Too many women don’t demand it of them.
Women are no longer gatekeepers. We’ve lost the instinct mentioned above...and society is weaker as the result.
Yes, but changing the terms of reproduction changes the eugenic optimum. When women are dependent on husbands, they want men who are kind, loving, hard-working, honest, and prepared to support them. When women are able to raise their children on their own, they want mates who are simply strong, tough, virile, and aggressive, because those are the qualities that will carry their genes into the next generation. In that equation, the men have nothing to do but fight among themselves for greater access to the women.
A reliable social welfare system for single mothers will inevitably breed street thugs. Such a system is parasitic upon the larger society, and tends to weaken it, as you say. Hopefully, women haven't lost their eugenic instincts though, even if the focus has been displaced.
Believe it or not, most Nazi doctors were enthusiastic supporters of Hitler's programs. The human detritus would be coldly dealt with in order for the Master Race to flourish. They fancied being on the front lines in bringing about a positive future as they envisioned it. The ends justify the means, and all that...
Our doctors turned a blind eye to this evil to maintain employment. Absolutely despicable.
The Nazis were devils, no doubt. But other nations were to some extent in the same boat. If you've done any reading about Eugenics, it was a popular movement in the early 20th century, to include the USA. Of course we never took things to the lengths the Nazis did, but we certainly did our share of sterilizations, in some places, the programs continued until the 1970s. Americans like to ride on their moral high horse but alas, we too have a few skeletons in the national closet.
And the really horrifying truth? At its core Eugenics is correct: It is NOT in the "herd's" (humanity's) long-term interest to allow the "less fit" to reproduce. And yes, the very ill, the old, the weak and the unfit are a drain on resources and thus should be "culled." This is "correct" in the natural sense, that Nature demands survival of the fittest.
None of this is news, it has been well known to scientists and ethicists for hundreds of years. Nietzsche wrote about it in the 19th century; his arguments were along the lines that democracy was the (many) weak organizing to protect against the (few) strong, ultimately producing a tame, domesticated citizen. In places he explicitly argues the weak should be culled.
Please observe I'm not defending Eugenics in any moral sense. Other than the most humane forms of it ("positive" eugenics) which would be, say, voluntary mating by consenting people, virtually any other types very quickly wades from the relatively firm ground of the merely morally dubious (mandatory birth control, anyone?) to the muck of forced sterilizations, ultimately into the quicksand of extermination.
We now return you to your preferred, Disney-esque fantasy world where all animals are herbivores and peace, happiness, butterflies and rainbows are the norm!
I support eugenics as an ideal. Why wouldn't we want more people to be strong, healthy, brave, intelligent, good-looking, honorable, and otherwise gifted, than the reverse?
The clinker is that Eugenicists usually wanted this program to be carried out by the government. I was disabused of this hope upon reading 1984 when I was a college freshman, and realized that if the government was running it, they would inevitably breed mediocre conformists instead, because those are the people they can rule over.
If the government is doing it, the result will be domestication. We eugenicists are hound dogs who aspire to be wolves, but the government would turn us into pugs, or toy poodles, or perhaps those little dogs the Aztecs used to eat.
I think Nietzsche had a sense of this. His concept of the "superman" was the eugenic ideal, but in contempt of government, absent Darwinian logic, and wrapped in the mantle of tragedy.
I've also heard that women are natural eugenicists in their search for a husband. They should be left to follow their instincts, and let the men each pursue his own "superman". That is the real eugenic method that we have always practiced, and the only one that actually works.
Women USED to be “natural eugenicists”...They, like other mammals, used to look for the fittest mate, the one most likely to provide shelter and safety and a good life for her and her children. Unfortunately, with the so-called “safety net” of our social welfare system, the government has become the provider for many women and their children. Many women are now WILLING to “mate” with sub-par men that are unwilling to work OR protect their progeny. Too many women don’t demand it of them.
Women are no longer gatekeepers. We’ve lost the instinct mentioned above...and society is weaker as the result.
Yes, but changing the terms of reproduction changes the eugenic optimum. When women are dependent on husbands, they want men who are kind, loving, hard-working, honest, and prepared to support them. When women are able to raise their children on their own, they want mates who are simply strong, tough, virile, and aggressive, because those are the qualities that will carry their genes into the next generation. In that equation, the men have nothing to do but fight among themselves for greater access to the women.
A reliable social welfare system for single mothers will inevitably breed street thugs. Such a system is parasitic upon the larger society, and tends to weaken it, as you say. Hopefully, women haven't lost their eugenic instincts though, even if the focus has been displaced.
The Nazi doctors. Not everyone by any means was part of that party, though they suffered for their not joining.