(2019-01-17, 08:09 PM)Kamarling Wrote: I read about the eugenics programs a few years ago when I happened to read a novel, Second Glance, by Jodi Picoult which was a ghost story wrapped around a quite extensive commentary about eugenics in the early 20th century. I followed up with some more reading on the subject and was not surprised to learn that most darwinists would hastily distance themselves from eugenics and make it clear that darwinism does not extend to social darwinism of that kind. This blog article is an example of such distancing and, to be fair, their argument seems reasonable to me.
http://blogs.britannica.com/2009/02/beyo...of-humans/
Eugenics does show, however, how science in general can be used - much like the bible - to support all kinds of aberrant social behaviour.
Of course, Darwinists distance themselves from some of the clear implications of their ideology, ones that are unacceptable in our current society. Why exactly doesn't Darwinism extend to "social Darwinism"?
I don't find the arguments (only outlined) in the linked brief apologia to be very convincing. I think it is mainly an understandable pained reaction to the application of the principles of Darwinism to human society, which application is perfectly logical and reasonable in that mindset. In that mindset humans are only animals and in principle can be improved by selective breeding. This apologia is mainly rationalizations to avoid the uncomfortable implications of Darwinism for human society. Darwinists don't like the painful implications of their belief system to be pointed out.
For instance,
Quote:"The fallacy of selective breeding in humans was only realized when the wealthy were suddenly poor, and the reality of genocide had demonstrated the extreme end of eugenics—in other words, with the shock of the Great Depression and the rise of Adolf Hitler in Nazi Germany, which ushered in the Holocaust."
How, scientifically, is it a fallacy? Sure, these results may be shunned and unacceptable to current society. But how does this demonstrate that selective breeding of humans over many generations (if it could be accomplished however seemingly impractical socially and culturally) would not eventually over a very long time period as society and history measure it result in substantial improvements in disease resistance, reduction in certain birth defects, and improvements in certain characteristics or traits like intelligence? Intelligence in humans has been shown to be in large measure heritable. Or for that matter, increases in other for instance arbitrary and socially determined traits like aggressiveness, muscularity or even big buttocks? These sorts of things have certainly has been demonstrated with other animal species like dogs and horses and cattle. Why not humans?
I haven't seen any arguments that there hasn't been a gradual decrease in heritable "fitness" traits in humans since societies and civilized cultures started protecting the weak and "defective" from the normal culling of nature. Why wouldn't selective breeding of humans reverse this trend and be an intelligent application of Darwinist principles?