Is eugenics the logical result of Darwinism?

I've never understood the attraction of the phrase "survival of the fittest". The only way to know what is the fittest is to see what survives. Survival and fitness are synonymous.What we are observing in the universe and the earth is change. Science attempts to use models, mathematics, theories, observations, and experiments to understand this change. Out of this comes some technology and understanding. People try to implement technologies that enhance their comfort and survival. Sometimes they get it wrong. Sometimes out of greed, fear, power they do wrong on purpose.That the ToE could be misused for political purposes is no surprise to me. So what? We should outlaw science and then what?Eugenics is one of many possible uses/misuses of the ToE. The very phrase "logical result of Darwinism" is semantically loaded. It's one of many, many results of the ToE. Note RESULTS, plural! I don't even know what the modifier logical is doing in that phrase. If anything I would characterize eugenics as an ILLOGICAL result of Darwinism. I also characterize the radioactive contamination of parts of the State of Washington as an illogical result of nuclear power and that derives back to that villian Einstein and his E=MCsquared.Let's all go back to the dark ages where none of this uppity science existed. The Bible was all a person needed to burn all those witches that were causing the crop failures and plagues. If they had burned Darwin and Einstein we wouldn't have these problems and Christianity could have made the world safe as soon as it eradicated the demon inspired Muslims with yet another crusade.We don't appreciate the logic of our creationist brethern. They know the truth. Science is evil. The Bible is the complete inerrant word of God and if we just kill everyone who disagrees then God will be happy and save the few of us who embraced every word just as it's printed in the KJV of the Bible in a wonderful heaven free of dangerous free thinkers, scientists, heretics, and shudder, people who believe in those other "demonic" religions different from ours. Hallelujah!lfenedited typo replacing "is" where I had typed "it".This message has been edited by lfen, 05-29-2005 05:01 PM

I know I'm going to regret replying but here goes. I only have to show that eugenics is not "the logical result of Darwinism". The Buddha taught about the significance and importance of compassion. Darwin was trying to explain the variety and relationship of species of plants and animals that we observe in the world. I'm not clear as to the distinctions you make between results, logical results, or illogical results. I'm thinking by logical you might mean inevitable. But perhaps you really do mean that anyone one who understands and accepts the ToE must come to the conclusion that we must adopt some eugenics program of compulsory sterilization, selective breeding, etc?And if some one here tells you they accept the ToE but don't accept the conclusion that eugenics are necessary how do you account for that? Is this hypothetical individual, or for example myself1. Mistaken and don't really understand the ToE?2. Understand ToE but are incapable of deriving the correct "logical" conclusion from it? (which makes me wonder if said individual could understand the ToE in the first place, but I'll leave that.)3. Logically convinced but engaging in a well document human capacity for disregarding logical conclusions and perversely acting illogically?4. ? perhaps you have alternative explanation that would go here?The ToE being a scientific theory is used to generate hypotheses for testing. The kinds of research into genetics, DNA, and understanding inherited diseases are some results of the ToE. Like all technology, or knowledge they are not in themselves compassionate or uncompassionate. A mugger and a surgeon both uses knives but for very different purposes.lfen

Well, the problem I'm having is that I'm not trying to derive a social or ethical system from the ToE and as far as I understand neither was Darwin. It's a scientific theory to explain biological systems not an ethical or moral philosophy. There is no logical tendency of evolutionism. I see the problem. You are generalizing your personal response to the theory. If you hadn't such a tendency to all or nothing, either or, absolute statements you might be able make an analysis of problems you see in modern society. But you have gone off half cocked on this. The issues of compassion, valuation, or depreciation of life are very complex and I'm not sure that we are worse off than we were in the past. The world's population is much larger and the scale of things in the last hundred years has increased. There were atrocities in the past, there are atrocities now. We also have animal rights movements and many compassionate activities such Physicians without Borders, etc. some of which, but not all, are conducted or inspired by Christians.lfen

Which tribes were these? And what does the Bible say Joshua and the Israelis were doing when they conquered the promised land? Or what were the Christian slavers doing in Africa and the American south? Or the crusades doing in the holy land? Do you know any history?And what is your definition of civilization anyway? All the history I read has civilization meaning the foundation of cities and agriculture with such pre Christian examples as Sumer, Egypt, China etc. I really suggest you take time to either read some history or take some classes.lfen

Faith,Okay, I'll call this the existential dilemma. And I do think the varied responses to this are perhaps the issues that stands between fundamentalists and others on this board.I as yet don't have a good grasp on the psychology of this. In the case of some "illogical" or non scientific fundamentalist here I think religion is pretty much the best they can do. There are some fundamentalist who are of a scientific bent and quite bright but who seem for family reasons unable to get past the existential question.Religions do give explicit answers and some of us can swallow the improbabilities of that with no problem and others find the story of the garden of Eden and the primitive fantastic absurdities of the Bible far more dismal and unsatisfactory than we do scientific theories. I can't account for the diffences though.I see you projecting your feelings of meaninglessness and looking for an external answer. Your religion gives you an answer that meets your needs. For some reason your response to your conclusions about the ToE are very distressing to you. Your response to that percieved threat is to invalidate the theory in order to reduce your stress level, not out of understanding but out of emotion.This existential vulnerability seems to be a key factor in yours and several other fundamentalists here. I think I shared this in my adolescence and young adulthood but it's hard for me now to recapture just what it was I was feeling I'm so different now.lfen

I missed that. What the hell is a mutational meltdown anyways?lfen

Awesome! Maybe we won't destroy the planet through overpopulation after all.Cool.lfenThis message has been edited by lfen, 05-30-2005 02:53 PM

A memory is starting to surface from decades ago.I was watching some character with an attitude similiar to Faith's on t.v. only this person blamed the modern problems on Einstein's theory of relativity being responsible for "situtional ethics" (everything is relative! very baaaad) which he regarded as the scourge of the day. Anyone remember "situational ethics" and the uproar that caused?Einstein's Theory of Relativity, now Darwin's Theory of Evolution, what other scientific theories have resulted in the decline and fall of western civilization?lfen

Relativity and Evolution are high profile media science that are the lightning rods for those who fear science. Rarely does philosophy get the attention science does. But wasn't Hegel and his philosophy of the dialectic more fundamental to Marx than Darwin? It was called Dialectical Materialism.It would appear Faith is quote mining some odd web pages in her quixotic attempt to undermine ToE by a smear campaign based on its failure to provide a basis for a good ethical system (something that wasn't claimed for it nor was part of Darwin's or any other biologist's intention.)On the other hand it doesn't appear you, Ned, or anyone else here will ever be able to get her to recognize the difference between philosophy and science, or the difference between ethics and biology. I'll hand it to you for trying.lfenedited typo: odds changed back to oddThis message has been edited by lfen, 05-30-2005 04:10 PM

Jar,This is interesting topic and I'd like to see more. It's been a long time since I've thought about Hitler. The last time being a book on the impact syphlis had on western society. The author made a strong case that Hitler was syphilitic with brain involvement particularly in the later years of the war. The brain thing resulting in major irrationality.The thing is as I recall he was very good at strategic diplomacy. He was "friends" with Stalin and Russia right up until he invaded. So it's hard to tell if this was a personal belief or a political diplomatic ploy for some advantage or another.lfen

Ringo,William James in his book THE VARIETIES OF RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE (the text of which is available online) talks about the different personality types as having different orientations to religions. Faith has objected to my introducing psychology as being "ad hominum" arguments, but I think when we start talking about "dispair" we are talking of the psychological experiences of individuals.I am currently reading Jonathan Kirsch's book GOD AGAINST THE GODS as he examines the impact of monotheism on human cultures. I think that with the emergence of science we are seeing a comparable transitional impact in the last few hundred years. This is very complex. There is another book I've seen (I forget the title, could it have been DARWIN'S GOD? something like that) that asserted Darwin had a deist theological agenda to redefine God as more removed and impersonal. I just skimmed the book and have no idea if that thesis is something I would accept or not.Certainly these issues of the meaning of life are of greater importance to some people but have been the subject of human scrutiny for several millenniums. Clearly the ToE, geology, and questions of origins has been distressing to many people, particularly those who are capable of finding consolation in fundamentalist Abrahamic religions.I don't know the current status of the eugenics movement. The ability to make selection among DNA and select fertilization not to speak of gene splicing means the challenges will increase. Faith also seems to be objecting to the reductionism of the ToE, or the perceived reductionism anyway. There are some significant issues here but the idea that the ToE should be condemned because it logically led to eugenics is a quixotic detour. The industrial revolution led to the horrors of the sweatshops. The Amish have avoided those horrors by their choice of lifestyle.Basically I get that Faith doesn't like eugenics and the ToE. ToE, or Pavlov, Watson, and Skinner's behaviourist psychology can lead to a feeling of overwelming meaninglessness. Some people still deal with the spectre of nihilism and that won't change but I think most people don't.Enjoy the good life up there in Canuckistan, Comrade Ringo.lfen