Is eugenics the logical result of Darwinism?

I wanted to ask this question, but it seems like someone beat me to it. I'm wondering, with TOE in mind, is a humane, compasionate and individualist society not counter productive for the evolution of man? Hitler said it is unhealthy for any nation to live in peace for longer than 20 years. He said that violence must be part of the political process. He wanted to create a world where you are either master or slave, and where doctors look after the (genetic) health of the nation, while the induvidual is irrelevant. The weak may be used for experimentation to benefit the strong. An often overlooked fact is also that promonent Nazis believed that if Germany looses the war, the Germans do not deserve to live. Survival of the fittest, even at your own expence. Is this not the kind of social structure that is needed to direct human evolution to a stronger future? One might even argue that we should do away with all weaponary: battles must be won purely on physical superiority. If the slave is superior to his master, then he must force his master into submission. When a leader gets old, he must be replaced with younger blood through violence, like it is the case in the animal world. There must be no police, and no laws other than the fist. Without God, there is no moral absolutes, and there is no purpose other than survival. Should this not be reflected in society?

I don't think you understand exactly what I mean. Eugenisists still live in a "civilised" world, in which there is a social contract, and good order. I was thinking more in the line of a society like in a maximum security prison: Dominate, or be dominated. Show no mercy. Unregulated violence, tribalisation, factions, constant fighting and oppression. Children must dominate their siblings, like we see in nature, and must be encouraged to do so. The sissy must not be shown any compassion and mercy, not even by its parents. Parents must favour the strongest child over the weakest. Do away with all social rules and all sences of decency. Anyone who wants a place in society must fight for it, and must fight to maintain it. Let nature take its course. That is how it is in nature. You have an alpha animal, that will be dethrowned when he gets older, and in some species, you get the omega animal. He gets picked on by everyone. The fight for supremacy goes on for ever, to ensure bad genes get worked out. It is a shocking statement, I know, but natural selection demands this, and any species who defy natural selection will be punnished with bad genes, and eventually extinction. Maybe Natural Selection should even become a universal God. This "God" rewards the brutal species, and punnishes the compasionate. If we accept evolution as a fact, evil must become good, and good must become evil. Christians say we are born with sin, and this is demonstrated by the observation that children can be very cruel. Maybe this sin is nothing more than survival instinct, and cruelty in children must be encouraged. The goal in society should not be to end oppression, but to become the oppressors. That must be the ultimate goal. Look at the migrations in Seringeti. Little do those animals care for those who can not cross the river, and get trappled on to death. Make no mistake: Nature and the animal kingdom is not a pretty place. If humans are subject to the same evolutionary laws than any other animal, and if we are an animal just like any other, then we must live acording to natures rules, or our domination in the animal kingdom will come to an end. Defy those rules at your own perril. Well, either that, or those rules does not exist. If they exist, they apply to us, and we must change our behaviour accordingly.

Ben, Maybe humans are weak because we've been too soft with each other. You must understand when I talk about survival, I mean as dominant animal of the planet. What is going to become of us if we run out of oil tomorow? How many people will be able to make a living without electricity? These modern advances are also our liability. If, for some reason, our technology fails us, it will be us and the animal kingdom again. How many will be able to survive a fight with wild animals, much less feed themselves? Our faith in our technology is playing with fire. It is making us genetically weaker, and, should something ever happen so we'll be placed back in the wild, we will be in big trouble. Look at human history. Everytime a civilisation reached domminance, they declined into a state of decadence, which ultimately made them weak and vulnerable. This is why all the major empires fell, and the human emire on earth might very well go the same way one day.I think I should mention here that I'm playing devils advocate here. I'm not really a fanatic. In the society which I propose, I will be one of those Omega animals.

"Sorry I thought you had a sensible question, I didn't realise you were a complete crank."What can I say? I like to stir, but I often regret it afterwards. It seems to be my weakness.

Ben.It is true that anti-semitism has Christian roots (Which I never understood. Why would christians blame the Jews for the cruxifiction of Christ, if Christ Himself said that it is God's plan, and that he willingly subject himself for our sakes. Why blame Jews when God has predetermined the outcome?)But for the rest of Hitlers philosophy, christianity played no part. Hitler often made pagan references, like "the goddess of destiny" and other crap. Also, it was well known that he disliked christianity, as it prevented his people from become the wild animals he wanted them to be.Anyway. The discussion is not so much what the origins was of Nazism as an moral question, and what role christianity might have played. It is whether our morals with its ancient origins are compatable with what we now know of evolution. Evolution transformed the way we view religion. While society rejected religion, we still hold religious morals dear, such as "thou shalt not kill." Should these basic morals which we take for granted not also be questioned whether they are compatable with evolution? Are we doing ourselves a favour by not filtering out bad genes in the same way all other mammals does it?(Once again. Devils advocate stirring. )