But no-one can, in fact, derive any
racist conclusions from the theory of evolution.
One can, of course, conclude that
eugenics is possible (though not desirable) from Darwin's theory, but one could come to that same conclusion by observing how we can improve our breeds of domestic animal. As in, for example, Plato's
Republic:
...
And how can marriages be made most beneficial?--that is a question which I put to you, because I see in your house dogs for hunting, and of the nobler sort of birds not a few. Now, I beseech you, do tell me, have you ever attended to their pairing and breeding?
In what particulars?
Why, in the first place, although they are all of a good sort, are not some better than others?
True.
And do you breed from them all indifferently, or do you take care to breed from the best only?
From the best.
And do you take the oldest or the youngest, or only those of ripe age?
I choose only those of ripe age.
And if care was not taken in the breeding, your dogs and birds would greatly deteriorate?
Certainly.
And the same of horses and animals in general?
Undoubtedly.
...
And from this he concludes that the "Guardians" of his state should improve the condition of their human flock by selectively breeding them, like animals.
People have always known that this is possible, knowing no more than Plato knew. Knowing the theory of evolution does not make eugenics seem any more possible, nor any more desirable.
Do you believe that animal breeds can be improved by artificial selection? Then you, too, believe in all the scientific basis eugenics has.
The objection to eugenics is that it's
immoral, and the theory of evolution implies nothing to the contrary --- has, indeed, no moral implications.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.