Hitler - Darwin Connection?

Question

Darwin wrote in his book, The Decent of Man, "Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed... At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races... '

I know Darwin was a well meaning guy, and I don't think his intentions were to harm another race, but do you think that his line of thinking is, when it's put to it's conclusion or taken to the extreme, prejudiced? Why or why not?

Answer 1

The story is that Hitler kept a copy of Machiavelli by his bedstand, not Darwin . . . .  unfortunately some of his fellow psychopathic criminal friends could actually read.

Answer 2

As well as diversity being good for society it is also good genetically.

Racial purity is not a genetically ideal situation. Diversity is. For instance mongrel dogs are much more physiologically robust (have stronger immune systems) than pure bred dogs. The same goes for all creatures, including humans.

The n***s getting rid of those with poor physical and mental health would have been beneficial for the gene pool, but is clearly inhumane.

The n**i pursuit of racial purity was based on falsehood however. It would merely limit the diversity of their gene pool, thus damaging their genetic future.

In Darwin's day there were most certainly more people around with crippling diseases and I'm sure he refers to them when he says "the weak members of civilized societies". Two HEALTHY parents of different genetic backgrounds is the most genetically ideal propagation. This means the offspring have more chance of gaining the immune strengths of both parents.

Answer 3

This is the gross and malicious distortion exploited by Ben Stein in his latest monstrosity, "Expelled." The logic is so twisted it isn't even worth discussing.

Answer 4

Social Darwinism was not created by Darwin, it was a distortion of Darwin's theories by others.

THAT is a misquote, here is the real thing. Check the reference.

Darwin wrote: "With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil."

Answer 5

Yes, the n***s did use Darwin's theories as "justification" for their eugenic programs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darw...

I don't think that this was ever Darwin's intention, either, but a grotesque misreprentation of his ideas. It's just another example of scientific theories being used to further political agendas - we are seeing the same thing these days with stem cell research, cloning, genetic modifications, and other travesties like these.

Answer 6

yes and no well i do think that us as one race would be better off and i dont mean to single out one race maybe if we all bread into every race within the human race we would have better and more complex  dna and not to mention cleaner dna we would be more resistant to disease and were would racism be then