The moral implications of evolution, and their discontents.

Having just watched a DVD on the raise of Nazism I think that Hitler did indeed use "survival of the fittest" as part of his excuse for what he did. I can't remember the details but the DVD gave documents and films of his speechs and I did note that he was using some evolutionary terminology.As as been noted before he also used religious terminology for the same ends.

Could be. The Nazis rose during the '20s and '30s, when eugenics was a biggish movement here in the States.The question remains, though, whether Hitler really understood what the theory of evolution really means. As Beretta pointed out, racists can and do use Christian terminology inappropriately -- it isn't surprising if they would also use biological terminology inappropriately.So, does evolution promote racism?

---

If it's truly good and powerful, it deserves to engender a thousand misunderstandings. -- Ben Ratcliffe

no but some aholes like hitler used part of it to justify their insane ideas.Similarly he used the bible to justify persection of the jews.
Insane tyrants use any kind of source to justify their crap. If he understood evolution he wouldn't have thought there was an aryan race.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other

I'm not sure that Nietzsche - even an eisegesis of censored versions of Nietzsche's works (his sister Elizabeth cut out things that would have offended the Nazis) are the only major sources of Nazi ideas.The idea of an "Aryan" race is taken from Gobineau - who published his An Essay on the Inequality of Human Races in 1853-55 - before Darwin published On the Origin of Species Houston Stewart Chamberlain added anti-semitism to the mix.We also have to remember that racism was far more common at that time. Even in the U.S. - Richard Feynmann reports of a quota limiting the number of Jews allowed into MIT. And in a defeated, humiliated Germany - suffering under the Depression and the severe terms of the Treat of Versailles it is easy to see how a conspiracy theory blaiming an easy target - the Jews - would have appealed to many.On the other side, the Bible is far from consistent - racism and genocide are very much part of it. The curse of Ham (Genesis 9 25-27) condemns the descendants of Canaan to servitude. The Book of Joshua is a glorification of genocide - what we'd call "ethnic cleansing". The Jewish law consistently demands more favourable treatment for Jews.And need we point out the long and violent history of Christian anti-semitism ? The Gospel of Matthew has the Jews as a race accepting blame for the crucifixion (and this aspect is almost certainly a complete fiction). And need we mention the infamous "Blood Libel" or the many persecutions of the Jewish people at the hands of Christians ?

hitler wasn't insane.why can't people stop using these ridiculous ideas like "genocide is unthinkable" or "tyrants are insane"? it really doesn't help the issue.google the third wave experiment. it's been done a few times in different ways. every time it's done, in every fashion, it has the same results. people are quickly and easily brought to extreme social cohesion with potentially frightening consequences. people are diseased. and our disease is that we thing that it can be fixed. we have to be aware of the evils we are most certainly all capable of and to which we have so strong a tendency. it is not unthinkable and it does not require madmen. it is, in fact, the most thinkable thing there is. if you can imagine justifying killing someone in self-defense, you are capable of genocide.Edited by brennakimi, : No reason given.

you talk about genocide like the holocaust is the only or the first example.how's this. rwanda has had two separate genocides. the first in the mid 60s after independence, and the second in 94. there have been several in the surrounding countries predicated on the same distinctions. the "racial" distinctions in the great lakes region were invented by german missionaries who decided that the tutsi social class (to some small and inconsistent extent possessing distint physical characteristics due to sexual selection) looked too "european" to really be "dirty black" bantus. they decided they must be "hamitic" tribes from north africa. they reinforced this artificial separation and built their government on it.racism and genocide do not come alone from evolution. they come from mankind's nasty habit of deciding that people are different or better and the "other" should be destroyed. we see the same in the bible. we see the same in the new incarnation of islamophobia.

No he doesn't. At least, not in the post you're replying to.ABE{Perhaps you're referring to someone else who's quoted in that message} Edited by bluegenes, : clarification

actually, yes. he and everyone else in this thread. someone says hitler and you think genocide. someone says genocide and you think hitler. get a grip.

Just what would your definition of insane be.Is it sane for a leader to kill off all those in his party who disagrees with him. (party purge 1932)

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other

quite. wrong does not determine insane. it is a most effective method of quelling dissent. it's not like it's a new phenomenon.i think this is the biggest issue. that people define "sane" and "insane" by their own subjective ideas of "right" and "wrong" or "acceptable" and "unacceptable". they have nothing to do with each other.

Everyone? Perhaps you'd like to quote us all?get a grip.I often think of Moses when the word's mentioned, as he might be the earliest recorded advocate of it.

Hitler's genocide may not be the first case, but it is, quite frankly, the most memorable. There are only two other cases of mass death that I know of that beat Hitler in terms of total dead--Russia and China.But Hitler's was the first that we discovered and thought "no more". Of course, we have learned of more and let them slide under the rug.How about you get a grip? It's not necessarily the fault of people that Hitler is synomonous with genocide.As to Hitler being insane, it's questionable, but looks like it. The medical evidence seems to suggest he was. His policies may or may not be a reflection of that.

What about the US, and South America?

---

Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

Even though genocide or "ethnic cleansing" is not strictly racist (serbs and albanians are the same race) we can use this as an example.Natural selection tells you that "inferior" (biologically) phenotypes will reproduce at a lesser rate than "superior" (biologically) phenotypes. Thus over time the "inferior" traits will be removed automatically from the population and "superior" traits will spread.No racial genocide or ethnic cleansing necessary.It also means that if you are worried\concerned about your particular race\ethnic "purity" being watered down or overwhelmed by the "other genes" then you are really worried about YOUR GENES being of an "inferior" phenotype, of their losing out in the "struggle of life" ... and thus it is the "inferior" phenotypes would be the ones that would need to "justify genocide" of the "superior" phenotype.Not the usual genocidal racists ethnic cleansing conclusion.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : clarity.

---

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Not too diminish what we did, but do we have accurate population figures? Or death figures?And did we kill as many in the same period of time as those three managed?In terms of total impact, we might just be greater on the list, though US history isn't my forte.And is South America one country?