Here's something that might be of interest to many of you: http://www.eugenics.net/ Here's a paragraph taken from their mission statement: 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? ------------------ www.indigenousrocks.com
Here is another webpage that reveals some interesting information regarding Eugenics in Socialist Sweden: http://www.ncpa.org/pi/internat/pdinter/pdint178.html This is the first paragraph from that page: Comments, anyone? ------------------ www.indigenousrocks.com
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: http://www.africa2000.com/ENDX/aepage.htm Following is an excerpt from that page: There are a number of other interesting tidbits on that page - check it out. ------------------ www.indigenousrocks.com
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.
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. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Searcher - 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. SkyeBlue - The Darwin Awards are some of the funniest stories I have ever read Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! FyreStar
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.
