The Gentle Darwinians - What Darwin’s Champions Won’t Mention

Commonweal ^ | March 9, 2007 | Peter Quinn

[ofwaihhbtn]

The enthusiasm Nietzsche expresses in this passage is for eugenics, a theory of biological determinism invented by Francis Galton, Charles Darwin’s first cousin. However extreme Nietzsche’s recommendation might sound today, by the first part of the twentieth century eugenics came to be widely practiced. In 1933, little more than thirty years after Nietzsche’s death, the Hereditary Health Courts set up in Nazi Germany were enforcing a rigorous policy of enforced sterilization; to a lesser degree, similar policies were carried out in societies from the United States to Scandinavia.

In 1912, in his presidential address to the First International Congress of Eugenics, a landmark gathering in London of racial biologists from Germany, the United States, and other parts of the world, Major Leonard Darwin, Charles Darwin’s son, trumpeted the spread of eugenics and evolution. As described by Nicholas Wright Gillham in his A Life of Francis Galton, Major Darwin foresaw the day when “eugenics would become not only a grail, a substitute for religion, as Galton had hoped, but a ‘paramount duty’ whose tenets would presumably become enforceable.” The major repeated his father’s admonition that, though the crudest workings of natural selection must be mitigated by “the spirit of civilization,” society must encourage breeding among the best stock and prevent it among the worst “without further delay.”

Leonard Darwin’s recognition of his father’s role in the formation and promotion of eugenics was more than filial piety.

The full text of the article is here: The Gentle Darwinians - What Darwin’s Champions Won’t Mention

[Boxen]

As much as many who visit this forum would wish it, guilt by association is not a valid argumentative tactic. If you wish to argue against the Theory of Evolution, or even Intelligent Design, attack the idea, not its associations.

[Central Scrutiniser]

more like this

[Ditto]

It’s interesting that Germany looked to the US for it’s ideas on eugenics.

So? It also looked to the US for its ideas on assembly lines.

[Psycho_Bunny]

The connection between creationists and blood-thirsty islamicists you always knew was there.....

[RussP]

The problem was not that your "equally stupid" argument was "stupid," the problem was that it missed the point entirely. And I'll bet dollars to dimes you miss the point here again, moron.

[WingBolt]

And we looked to Germany for autobahns? :) I think
Godwin is about to make an entrance...

[tang-soo]

You wanna find the Rosetta Stone, download the book Killer Angel.

[RunningWolf]

guilt by association is not a valid argumentative tactic

I have noticed a change from last summer and October. But just when specifically, did the evos change their tactics then?

[Ditto]

The fact that Hitler liked dogs did not distinguish him from the masses. The fact that he believed in eugenics did.

No, eugenics fit right in with what most people believed then --- (and many still do) -- i.e. that you could categorize peoples intelligence, talents, faults or proclivities based upon their race or ethnicity.

Irish are drunks, Italians are lovers, Poles are stupid, Jews are greedy, Blacks are stupid, shiftless and whatever other negative trait you wanted to throw at them.

Eugenics was nothing but blatant racial stereotyping by college graduates instead of racist stumble bums down at the mill.

Yes, they used Darwin and five syllable words, but only to reinforce their own prejudices and to reach the Utopian ends they dreamed of. That's not Darwin's fault.

BTW. Before Darwin, the same people used the Bible to do the same thing.

[Boxen]

moron

Name calling? Is that really necessary? Maybe you should slow down a bit.

[hosepipe]

Easy enough for a cave man bump...

[Boxen]

I'm afraid I don't know what you mean. What is an "evo"? Do they hold local chapter meetings?

Posters from both sides of the debate have argued from association.

[dr_lew]

Darwinism leads a very confused political existence. Most of the "social" and "psychological" Darwinistic literature is seen as rightist, since it is perceived on the left as lining up behind racist ideas on intelligence and European cultural superiority. Indeed, H. G. Wells ( whose History of the World is emphatically liberal in outlook ) thought that Europeans were on the verge of exterminating, or at least numerically dominating, other races.

Of course, various religious viewpoints are wont to vilify Darwinism since it seems to challenge their own foundation.

Arguments such as is presented here always remind me of Plato's Euthyphro, wherein Socrates asks whether the good is what God desires, or whether God desires what is good.

It seems to me that this sort of argument appeals to the latter conception, since Darwinism is held up as leading to bad behavior, as opposed ( implicitly ) to creationism, or some other religious viewpoint, which leads to good behavior. I've always thought that the appeal here is to an innate, or deeply and unconsciously held, sentiment of what is good and what is bad which transcends all doctrine.

[grey_whiskers]

I have noticed a change from last summer and October.

Things heated up last summer with a number of longtime FReepers--one person had a homepage disappear on them with no immediate explanation forthcoming; there was another thread in which one user posted real-life name and other information of another FReeper with whom he disagreed (both ended up banned or suspended--and I only heard of this secondhand, as I was in Alaska when it happened); and things generally got worse for all concerned, until an infamous thread in which the crud generally hit the fan.

Many of the pro-evo folks--but not all--quit or were banned at that point; a large contingent of them went over to another site called Darwin Central.

Quite a shame that things fell out in the fashion that they did : many of the now departed were PhD level and very intelligent and informed on a wide variety of topics.

(If you know where to look, there are still a goodly number of other folks of equal IQ and/or education left on FR: they just don't tend to congregate in crevo threads anymore.)

But I still wish things had been resolved more amicably.

[RussP]

Maybe.

[Boxen]

But I still wish things had been resolved more amicably.

Some people take internet arguments a little too seriously.

[RunningWolf]

I still wish things had been resolved more amicably

I share in that

[RunningWolf]

Eugenics was nothing but blatant racial stereotyping by college graduates instead of racist stumble bums down at the mill

Good point

Yes, the college graduates are subject to the same foibles the stumble bums are, but in their arrogance they do not see it.

[Jeff Gordon]

Assume:
A, B, C, D are seperate, unrelated objects.

According to RussP:
A=B therefor C=D.

Ada Byron rolls over in her grave while Babbage bursts out laughing and spits coffee onto the keyboard of his Analytical Engine.

[dr_lew]

I disagree entirely. Eugenics is rationally sound, and certainly does not depend on evolution or Darwinism for its basis. It depends only on a belief in human genetic variability. For example, you could have a eugenic program to improve eyesight, or any number of other traits. I don't think it can be denied that eyesight has degenerated in the human population by "regression towards the mean" due to artificial amelioration of the results of poor phenotypical outcomes, and the social acceptance of these efforts - i.e. the continued sexual fitness of the recipients thereof.

The big hit on eugenics is the offense it gives to our moral sensibilities. We are not willing to "harden our hearts" against those, such as myself, with poor eyesight in favor of the abstract notion of an improved race.