View Full Version : Eugenics
12-04-99, 03:28 PM
Here's something that might be of interest to many of you:
Here's a paragraph taken from their mission statement:
In a word, Future Generations is about eugenics. The eleventh edition of The Encyclopedia Britannica defines eugenics as "the organic betterment of the race through wise application of the laws of heredity." Most people draw a blank when they hear the word, or it conjures up images of swastikas and jack-booted Nazi's. But eugenics has had a long history, extending back to ancient Rome (and probably beyond).
Indeed. Hitler's desire to get rid of those he considered undesirable was nothing new, and apparently it didn't die with him. Does this make anyone else uncomfortable?
12-04-99, 04:20 PM
Here is another webpage that reveals some interesting information regarding Eugenics in Socialist Sweden:
This is the first paragraph from that page:
Last week it was revealed that Sweden imposed forced sterilization for 40 years, a practice that ended only in 1976. During this period, some 62,000 Swedes were sterilized in an effort to improve the quality of the Swedish people. Those of mixed race, low intelligence or with physical defects underwent forced sterilization by the state in order to prevent such qualities from being passed on. However, there is evidence that sterilization extended even to those who were merely rebellious, promiscuous or did not fit in somehow.
12-04-99, 04:45 PM
And here's a webpage which provides information that suggests Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, didn't go to Germany in the 1930's just to buy lederhosen:
Following is an excerpt from that page:
Margaret Sanger, a member of both the American Eugenics Society and the English Eugenics Society, is a particularly well-known proponent of eugenics. This is but one of many similar comments by Sanger,
"Those least fit to carry on the race are increasing most rapidly ... Funds that should be used to raise the standard of our civilization are diverted to maintenance of those who should never have been born." (from The Pivot of Civilization quoted in Margaret Sanger. by Elsah Droghin.)
There are a number of other interesting tidbits on that page - check it out.
Eugenics has also occured in my home province of Alberta, Canada. There've been a slew of lawsuits recently by victims of so-called 'forced sterilization' while under care of provincial mental health facilities.
An Alberta woman recently won a lawsuit against the government of Alberta for wrongful sterilization that took place when she was a 14-year-old ward at the Provincial Training School for Mental Defectives. It was the first time the province has been held accountable for actions taken under the Sexual Sterilization Act, a 1927 law that promoted the theory of eugenics and led to the sterilization of more than 2800 people. It has since been repealed. A physician who served on the province's Eugenics Board said the decisions were based on the best scientific advice and medical techniques available at the time. Today, she added, eugenics is being practised in a different way through prenatal diagnosis and therapeutic abortion.
12-05-99, 10:41 PM
Don't have time to read the links just yet, but DaveW's post reminds me of other countries that try to determine the sex of the baby and abort it if it is female.
On a lighter note, though, have you guys seen the Darwin Awards? Sometimes nature takes care of the 'low intelligent' members of society.
Sorry, forced sterilization - this is seriously sick stuff. I'll read the links next chance. :)
12-06-99, 02:45 AM
Eugenics have always been one of the darkest aspects of our species. Basically, it is an attempt at forced evolution. Aside from the biochemical hazards of doing this, it is often a basic infringement on the human rights of a group of individuals, which makes it, in my opinion, quite wrong.
Have you considered whether or not it would be acceptable to attempt betterment of our species without harming others at all? Would it be ok with you then? I'm just curious, because I haven't found a compelling moral reason not to yet.
The Darwin Awards are some of the funniest stories I have ever read :)
12-06-99, 07:03 PM
Sick as it may seem to most of us, Eugenics, selective breeding or whatever cultivation of perfect humans, seems to have been around for a long time. Think back to the ancient Spartans who would kill any newborn child that was less than the ideal model they were after. It wouldn't surprise me if in fact this isn't the way we (Homo Sapiens) actually got rid of the Neanderthals.
There will always be a section of society sympathetic to this kind of thinking because it's probably due to a survival instinct gene type of thing, so don't be shocked by it, just try and reason with the people you come across that harbour these type of thoughts and ideas and if you can't convince them that they're wrong, well, just shoot them.
To condemn eugenics is to condemn the evolutionary process. The human species has arisen to dominate the world through near-infinite suffering and destruction of countless species and individuals who have been deemed unfit for existence.
It should be noted that eugenics can be defined as socially-mediated evolution (ie. evolution that occurs as a result of social (ie. intraspecies) decisions).
Eugenics (ie. socially-mediated evolution) has defined what we are as a society and a species. As such, we cannot condemn it as absolutely morally wrong.
To put it more blatantly, murder may be considered 'wrong', as we are socialized to believe. However, without the 'murder' of all our ancestors (after all, how often could pre-civilization animals actually die of 'old-age'??), we would not be here to make that moral pronouncement.
It is thus absurd, and quite contradictory, for us to claim eugenics (and evolution) to be morally wrong.