What are the downfalls of eugnics?

Question

I think that if people like me were killed, and those worse off would make the world better. There some people who would be better off dead. Without contributing to society, people are just selfish to please themselves. I think the contribution must be equal between happiness with yourself and how happy you make other people. I know that the de-value-ization of human life is unfortunate but wouldn't everything be better? What good perspective or help do less fortunate people offer. Instead of just saying unfortunate I would rather say those who don't even have much potential, they exist because they do but what for? Do they mean anything?

Answer 1

well look at the wars caused by eugnics, it produces a racists instinct in where my race or even tribe is greater then yours . and people outside ors should be brought in to make it more superior. it can be very dangerous.here is an article.

A Matter of Life and Death
8/30/2005

From Darwin to Hitler


In all our contemporary conflicts over the teaching of evolution in schools, there's one question that nobody asks: To what does the embrace of Darwinism lead?

Historian Richard Weikart explores that topic in a book called From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany. Despite that provocative title, Weikart is no sensationalist. He's not out to prove that Hitler and the Nazi party were directly inspired by Charles Darwin's theories. But what Weikart does demonstrate, through exhaustive research, is that Darwin's ideas about the origin of species helped create a culture that devalued human life. And in that culture, Nazism was able to thrive.

Darwin wasn't the first person to claim that the strong and healthy have higher value than the weak and sick, or that some races are inferior to others. Those ideas, Weikart says, were around long before Darwin. What Darwin provided was a scientific foundation for these beliefs. Weikart writes, "Only in the late nineteenth and especially the early twentieth century did significant debate erupt over issues relating to the sanctity of human life. . . . It was no mere coincidence that these contentious issues emerged at the same time that Darwinism was gaining an influence. Darwinism played an important role in this debate, for it altered many people's conceptions of the importance and value of human life, as well as the significance of death." And it wasn't just the sanctity of life that came under attack. Darwinism also strengthened what Weikart calls "scientific racism," the theory that some races were less fully evolved than others.

Because of Darwin's theories, leading scientists in the early part of the twentieth century felt emboldened to propose radical ideas about how the sick or members of other races should be treated. Even as we read them today, some of their statements still sound shocking in their willful ignorance. Several scientists, for example, compared the mentally ill to apes. Textbooks were written that allegedly demonstrated scientifically that Africans, Native Americans, and Australian aborigines were subhuman. The eugenics movement -- advocated in America as well as Europe -- was able to bring about the sterilization of thousands of supposedly "inferior" people.

In that environment, a young Adolf Hitler found fertile soil for his radical ideas for the "super race." Weikart could not trace those ideas directly to Darwin, as we have little evidence of which authors Hitler read and admired. But in his days in Vienna and Munich, theories about racial inequality were everywhere. As Weikart says, "Eugenics and euthanasia . . . were embraced by a diverse crowd of secular social reformers," and their ideas filled the popular press. The few authors we do know that Hitler admired were steeped in that culture.

Those ideas are still with us today. Look at what happened to Terri Schiavo. It's a good time for us to remind people of the social consequences of Darwinism as Weikart so well documents. It's bad enough to teach flawed theories in a classroom, but it gets downright dangerous when we let such theories lead us to a diminished view of human life and dignity.

This commentary first aired on April 7, 2005.

Answer 2

Boy, your presentation is so full of contradiction. Eugenics is the defense of black patois, and has sought acceptance as a form of grammar. I care not if the supporters of eugenics choose to value this form of communication over the globally accepted, and used literary style. I see no value in self imposed limitation.