If you believe in evolution, do you also support eugenics?

Question

I am not saying that all do but Darwin seemed to. I believe that abortion is encouraged as a form of eugenics sometimes. What do you think?

Answer 1

I am not sure.

Passive eugenics, I guess... but how do you get that to work?

I am just glad the time will be approaching when parents who carry hereditary diseases will be able to have those screened out so they can have healthy babies.

I am also 100% in favor of genetic engineering. Can you imagine a world where cancer does not exist? In 50 years, it could be a reality.

Answer 2

No; I believe that eugenics is counter to natural selection.  Any time you begin breeding for certain traits you restrict the gene pool and once you start messing with natural selection it's a short road to extinction.

Darwin did not support eugenics; he believed (correctly) that natural pressures in the environment favored those organisms which were best equipped genetically to deal with those pressures.  that is not the same thing as eugenics.  That's natural selection.  I think you need to learn more about the definition of each term.

Answer 3

Eugenics has gotten a bad rap.  It just means "happy genes."  Who could be against happy genes?

Anytime someone decides who to marry they're practicing eugenics!

We all want healthy, happy, vigorous, smart children.

Voluntary, democractically based eugenics is a good thing.

Answer 4

Darwin did because he believed that disability, illness and poverty were ills that coudl be 'evolved out'.

Of course the main problem is that just evolution happens, eugenics involves a choice of what is not and what is desirable based on belief.

But times change and I don't know many people outside of the far right that believe its a good thing, mainly because we know understand there are social as well as genetic factors at work. We are also far more understanding of different cultures and differences, and that can't be a bad thing.

Answer 5

Yes and no.

This is like asking if I believe in Chemicals, and do I support WW2 gas chambers.

Answer 6

Evolution is a working theory of how life got to be the way it is now. I agree that it's got the best explanation of any responsible theories going.

Eugenics is a broad topic that generally attempts to improve the human race by carefully choosing who gets to reproduce and who is discouraged from reproducing.

We practice it to mild degrees just by our incest laws, which are designed to prevent similar weak genes from coming into the next generation from parents who both have these genes.

People today are often counseled about the genes they carry. If there's a high risk of having a child with an inherited defect or disease, those parents may choose not to have children.

Eugenics is, as you can see, very different from Evolution. It is a political viewpoint. Evolution, on the other hand, simply is a theory that explains -- and really explains quite well -- how life came to be the way it is as we see it today.

I'm not a big fan of eugenics. It is not accurate. Evolution is a theory, and it works. Eugenics is a political view toward using theories of genetics to improve the human race, and it doesn't work, because we don't know nearly enough.

Hope this helps.

Answer 7

No.  Never even occurred to me.

Answer 8

No.

What a bad question. That's like asking "Do all nuclear physicists approve of stockpiling nuclear warheads?"

Answer 9

I do think we need to relax on the population. Why encourage birth when couples and parents can barely take care of the children they do have? Either financially or psychologically?

I think we could sustain a population that allowed for 1 child per person. So a couple could have 2 children.

Oh gosh, I got eugenics mixed up!

Eugenics usually leads to many deformities from incest. That is usually how it ends up happening anyway. If eugenics was practiced in a way that people would not breed with their family. But like others said, not forced.

Answer 10

Darwin was a genius is some things, and a complete dimwit in others.. He was after all, not a god.

I accept evolution as rather excellent explanation of the vast amounts of evidence out there.. It strings that evidence together quit nicely, and many other sciences show consistency with it.

Answer 11

"I am not saying that all do but Darwin seemed to."

Is this the Hitler-card under disguise? If it is, you're being highly mendacious. Or terribly misinformed.

Answer 12

Yes, but not forced eugenics. People hear eugenics and think Hitler, then immediately oppose it without thinking about it. But Hitler was nice to his dog too. Does that mean you shouldn't be? Eugenics is actually a good thing. The bad thing is forcing people to do it.

Cathartes Aura: We're already messing with natural selection when we practice medicine. We're weakening the species when we do that - making it dependent on doctors. I see no reason why we can't try to strengthen ourselves.

Answer 13

yes  

Answer 14

No, of course not.  What a despicable idea, and deplorable practice.

Have you been watching Ben Stein's "Expelled" movie, or what?  A belief in evolution is not an automatic explicit or implicit acceptance of eugenics.  In fact, the theory of evolution is based on natural selection, and by definition, eugenics would be an act of artificial selection.  There is no solid connection.  

Answer 15

It is a common misconception that Darwin supported eugenics.  He did not.  He recognized that humans, like other animals, could reinforce certain characteristics through selective breeding.  But he never advocated it as an official policy.  Which is what the modern usage of the word "eugenics" implies.

Evolution is natural selection.  Eugenics is artificial selection.  Both work.  One just works much faster than the other.  And therefore has a much greater potential for abuse.

Answer 16

Evolution is not a moral process.

Believing that it happened is not a belief that is SHOULD have happened or should be encouraged.