Does evolution lead to eugenics?

Question

Why or why not? It seems to, in my humble view.

Is eugenics immoral? I believe it is.

Paul S, you can do better on the 'why or why not' part of the question than saying 'that's just silly' - I'm sure of it.

Thanks for the thoughts Dreamstuff - there has to be better sources than Talkorigins - some poor arguments on their little site. Even I can punch holes in them, and I'm just not very talented.

Thanks Skalite - please don't knock me out, at least not today.

Paul S, I'm not trying to poke at you. I know you have some good thoughts on much of the banter on R&S, so assume you do on this topic as well. Some other folks answering this question see the linkage between the two, as I do. I'm just thinking it through, and asking an honest question because I see an obvious moral issue.

Matt J - 'most of them were Christians' - do you have numbers?

Fishy - interesting thoughts, thanks.

Answer 1

An interesting topic. A simple answer: Not if you don't want it to. Evolution is an elegant system of propegating ones genes, nothing more. Eugenics is taking the evolutionary process into so-called intelligent hands. The entirety of life's existence has proceeded without help from an outside influence, what in the world makes one think that we humans can improve upon it?

Answer 2

It depends on the manner in which it is used. If it is enforced then yeah its immoral, however we perform it already when we look for something special in a mate. We go for the most attractive, or the smartest, or what not.

I wouldn't say evolution would lead to eugenics, I would say Eugenics would allow humans to evolve further. Currently we can't evolve because we don't allow bad traits to die out. We try to keep everyone alive, its one of our best qualities and one of our greatest flaws (from a long term survival point of view). There's also the question of whether it would do any good or not as well. Stephen Hawking is a great example of this. One of the most brilliant people ever, and if we followed any kind of eugenics program, his DNA line would likely end.

To the question of biodiversity, a good plan would maintain this while also trying to improve or weed out bad traits. Dogs were breed for certain traits while not losing their biodiversity. However, some breeds of dog do have genetic flaws which make them susceptible to certain diseases or other problems.

Answer 3

But a good eugenics program that didn't shallow the gene pool too much wouldn't have a detrimental effect on the population fitness in the long term. You could combat the problem also by creating two diverse races from the Eugenics program and cross-breeding them every now and then to create hybrids so as to create more diversity (increasing heterogeneity)

Answer 4

Eugenics is a directed breeding program similar to development of a smoosh-faced tailless cat or the ultimate ubermouse. Evolution is a natural process that is guided by environmental changes or other natural pressures, say from competition from other species. The two are not directly related.
I do not uphold myself as the arbiter of morality so I will withhold judgment on that question.

Answer 5

1. Eugenics is based on genetic principles that are independent of evolution. It is just as compatible with creationism, and in fact at least one young-earth creationist (William J. Tinkle) advocated eugenics and selective human breeding (Numbers 1992, 222-223).

2. Many eugenics arguments, such as the expected effect of selective sterilization and the results of interracial mating, are based on bad biology. Better biology education, including the teaching of evolution, can only counter the assumptions on which eugenics is based.

Links:
Wilkins, John. 2000. Evolutionists against eugenics; Post of the month: November 2000. http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/nov00.html
References:

1. Numbers, Ronald L. 1992. The Creationists. New York: Knopf.

Answer 6

Evolution doesn't particularly lead to anything. What you're saying sounds like a preordained destination, which, of course, is antithetical to Evolution.

Evolution is a continuing process, not an end result---it never stops.

As for eugenics, it is not inherently moral or immoral; it is the use to which it may be put that is suspect.

Answer 7

Well, I think the future of evolution now, also rests on eugenics, although I completely disagree with it. Because the premise lies in someone's twisted idea of a "perfect" race -- or a perfect population, which is absolute bullshit. Then, wouldn't someone's idea of "perfect" just be subjective, based on what their concept of "beauty" is? I also strongly disagree with the idea of the sterilization of people with birth-defects, or the infanticide of female babies just because a country like China is over-populated. I actually downright abhor the idea behind it--whether it's for overpopulation reasons, or for the cessation of a mutated gene. I'm sick of human beings who think they're superior enough to call the shots on the rest of the world.

Answer 8

No, this is an error. In fact, a proper understanding of genetics and evolution will show that many of the ideas of eugenics are impossible. Many of the "undesirable" traits the eugenicists wanted to "breed out" of the population cannot be.

Answer 9

I believe eugenics to be immoral and unethical, only for the reason that it could lead to gross discrimination against non-eugenic people.

Regards

Answer 10

Of course not. That's just silly.

Doesn't the fact that you have to go to these ridiculous extremes to defend your worldview tell you something about the quality of that worldview? It should.
==================
"Paul S, you can do better on the 'why or why not' part of the question than saying 'that's just silly' - I'm sure of it."

Okay. Tell us why you think it would, and I'll point out where you're wrong.