Me: “What eugenic theories?”
You: Read Darwin’s Origin of Species (it’d probably be banned if I posted the full title of his book). In it he noted things like that red ants used black ants as slaves and that, in his view, the red ant colony would cease to exist without the black ant slaves.
What eugenic theories
You: What eugenic theories?
Me: Read Darwin's Origin of Species (it'd probably be banned if I posted the full title of his book). In it he noted things like that red ants used black ants as slaves and that, in his view, the red ant colony would cease to exist without the black ant slaves.
Also me: For those who couldn't piece together how his natural selection fit into keeping non-whites in their place, Darwin wrote a sequel to his book a decade or so later. In Descent of Man he gets really ugly about how whites evolved in a way superior to non-whites, how life is better off if the whites out-produce the non-whites, and that it can be best achieved by if whites keep non-whites too poor to survive and thrive (the argument being thriving leads to more babies).
You: What eugenic theories
In 1881, toward the end of his life, Charles Darwin wrote to a colleague that the “more civilised so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilised races throughout the world.”1 This was not just some offhand comment unrelated to Darwin’s science. It reflected important elements of his theory of human evolution. Indeed, he articulated this same principle in his scientific study of human evolution, The Descent of Man (1871), where he claimed, “At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races.”2 Not only racism, but racial extermination was an integral feature of Darwin’s theory from the start.
This is a position that has been articulated by many historians of science.3 Two prominent historians specializing in the history of Darwinism, Adrian Desmond and James Moore, mince no words about the racism inherent in Darwin’s theory. In their magisterial biography of Darwin, they state, “‘Social Darwinism’ is often taken to be something extraneous, an ugly concretion added to the pure Darwinian corpus after the event, tarnishing Darwin’s image. But his notebooks make plain that competition, free trade, imperialism, racial extermination, and sexual inequality were written into the equation from the start — ‘Darwinism’ was always intended to explain human society.”4
https://evolutionnews.org/2022/02/the-racism-of-darwin-and-darwinism/
His fans may try to excuse Darwin as a “man of his times” but he clearly was racist and his theories led directly to mass slaughter.
Be use he’s viewed as “anti-Christian” and “anti-God” he’s gotten a free pass by leftists and the academy.