Richard Dawkins says Nazi Eugenics "May Not Be Bad"

[Jennifer123]

And you’re assuming that anyone who even considers the logic of eugenics must automatically agree with all these other things you call the culture of death, and that just isn’t any truer than saying all Catholics have green skin or some other silliness.

No but the fact is some will take these ideas logically further, which, little by little, do much to destroy the idea that humans have dignity in and of themselves, not because science has deemed it so based on musical ability, eye color, or taken further, race, gender or ethnicity.

We mustn’t stand by while these ideas gain acceptance and say to ourselves, “Oh well, he’s just a kook” or heaven forbid, “Well, he’s got a point”. We must realize one day these same ideas will determine whether we will live with dignity or be sanctioned “unproductive” by society and killed. Already in some European countries, humane medical treatment for terminally ill patients is curtailed once they refuse to participate in “assisted suicide”.

To fail to see how this all connects is to be willfully ignorant IMHO.

 

[HoppityRedux]

What’s the link to Catholic teaching? I think that eugenics is an obvious assault to human dignity, places scientist in control of procreation, involves destruction of developing embryos and treats human being as consumer products.

From the CCC

2376 Techniques that entail the dissociation of husband and wife, by the intrusion of a person other than the couple (donation of sperm or ovum, surrogate uterus), are gravely immoral. These techniques (heterologous artificial insemination and fertilization) infringe the child’s right to be born of a father and mother known to him and bound to each other by marriage. They betray the spouses’ "right to become a father and a mother only through each other."167
2378 **A child is not something *owed ***to one, but is a gift. The “supreme gift of marriage” is a human person. A child may not be considered a piece of property, an idea to which an alleged “right to a child” would lead. In this area, only the child possesses genuine rights: the right “to be the fruit of the specific act of the conjugal love of his parents,” and "the right to be respected as a person from the moment of his conception."170

Managing human reproduction to produce smarter, stronger, and healthier humans does not violate the CCC items you posted.

Why? 1) Because It does not demand any dissacociation of husband and wife. they can reproduce in the age old manner. 2) Because it in no way must make the child property, and doesn’t separate him from the parents.

I am sure one could design a program that violated the CCC referenced items, but that is hadly necessary. The Church has long recognized and blessed marriages made for political purposes. Why? Look at all the marriages of royalty since Charlemagne.

If folks can marry for politics, and could marry to produce an heir, why couldn’t they marry for a better offspring?

 

[Gabriel_Gale]

]
When a religious scheme is shattered (as Christianity wasshattered at the Reformation), it is not merely the vices thatare let loose. The vices are, indeed, let loose, and theywander and do damage. But the virtues are let loose also;and the virtues wander more wildly, and the virtues do moreterrible damage. The modern world is full of the old Christianvirtues gone mad.

OK, I’m trying to be fair here. But you are lumping a lot of good, intelligent, well-meaning people into one camp and calling them Nazis. Is it too much to ask those who want respect also show it?

The Germans and many Nazis were good, well meaning and intelligent. That’s the tragedy of Third Reich. Germany was probably the most technologically and scientifically advanced culture in the world, during the 1930’s. In the early twentieth century Germany produced scientist still known today such as Einstein, Bohr, Plank, Alzheimer, Freud, etc. Similarly, in philosophy they boasted such luminaries as Heidegger.

Eugenics wasn’t practiced in only Germany and was a popular cause through-out the world in the 1930s. American progressives like Margaret Sanger, WEB Dubois, Justice Oliver Holmes supported eugenics. We had sterilization laws passed in California. In Germany, the psychiatrists and other physicians killing their patients suffering from physical handicaps, mental illness or mental retardation considered themselves compassionate and doing good. Eugenics was always pursued for the sake of a healthy society.

A lot of good, well-meaning and intelligent people were also Nazis.

 

[Gabriel_Gale]

Managing human reproduction to produce smarter, stronger, and healthier humans does not violate the CCC items you posted.

Caveman: Woman look good. She will give me many strong sons. How many bearskins?
Hoppity:

Why? 1) Because It does not demand any dissacociation of husband and wife. they can reproduce in the age old manner. 2) Because it in no way must make the child property, and doesn’t separate him from the parents.

I’m not sure what you mean by managing and designing a program. If you mean choosing a spouse who you believe would provide healthy, stronger and smarter children, I have no problems with that although I think that it’s a little superficial. However, I can understand testing a fiancée for a carrier gene for sickle cell or Tay Sachs and deciding not to marry especially if you were also a carrier.
Hoppity:

I am sure one could design a program that violated the CCC referenced items, but that is hadly necessary. The Church has long recognized and blessed marriages made for political purposes. Why? Look at all the marriages of royalty since Charlemagne.

Wanting a healthy, smart, strong and good looking child is not wrong. However, the history of eugenics has been a tendency to violate Church doctrine, mercy killing in Nazi Germany, forced sterilization in California, sex selection via in vitro fertilization and embryo “selection” , aborting children with Trisomy 21 and sperm banks offering a chance to get an athletic, Harvard physician.
Hoppity:

If folks can marry for politics, and could marry to produce an heir, why couldn’t they marry for a better offspring?

“ Better offspring?” Are children without Downs, better than children with Downs. Are offspring with a higher IQ better than offspring with lower IQ. You comment illustrates the basic problem with a eugenic mindset. Instead of gifts (CCC 2378), children are seen as objects, lifestyle accesories, some “better” than others.

 

[Gabriel_Gale]

Wesley Smith states that Dawkins has backed away from the headline claiming that he supports eugenics.
smith:

Dawkins reaffirmed his quoted words, but does not elaborate about whether he opposes or supports genetically enhancing progeny.

Smith also makes the following observation:
smith:

Here is a rich irony, considering Dawkins’ crusade to destroy religious belief (which is not an issue we discuss here at Secondhand Smoke). The primary supporters of eugenics in the first third to half of the 20th Century were scientists, the self described “free thinkers,” political progressives, and religious liberals. The opponents of eugenics were primarily, although certainly not exclusively, overt religionists of a decidedly orthodox persuasion. At least as to the that issue, the religionsts had it right.

 

[rlg94086]

Can you explain exactly how society is to “manage human reproduction to produce smarter, stronger and healthier humans?”

Then, I think we could answer how those methods violate Church teaching. An abstract theory may not, but the concrete actions taken to accomplish said theories often do.

Here are some possible examples:

1. Not allowing certain people to reproduce because of their genetic makeup by sterilizing them.
2. Aborting fetuses who have genetic abnormalities.
3. IVF of “superior” eggs with “superior” sperm to create uberchildren.
4. Government determining someone’s choice for a spouse.

Managing human reproduction to produce smarter, stronger, and healthier humans does not violate the CCC items you posted.

Why? 1) Because It does not demand any dissacociation of husband and wife. they can reproduce in the age old manner. 2) Because it in no way must make the child property, and doesn’t separate him from the parents.

I am sure one could design a program that violated the CCC referenced items, but that is hadly necessary. The Church has long recognized and blessed marriages made for political purposes. Why? Look at all the marriages of royalty since Charlemagne.

If folks can marry for politics, and could marry to produce an heir, why couldn’t they marry for a better offspring?

 

[Riley259]

I’m not sure if he’s already on the list but if not, let’s add Dawkin’s name to the list of the Architects of the Culture of Death.

 

[HoppityRedux]

Caveman: Woman look good. She will give me many strong sons. How many bearskins?

I’m not sure what you mean by managing and designing a program. If you mean choosing a spouse who you believe would provide healthy, stronger and smarter children, I have no problems with that although I think that it’s a little superficial. However, I can understand testing a fiancée for a carrier gene for sickle cell or Tay Sachs and deciding not to marry especially if you were also a carrier.

Wanting a healthy, smart, strong and good looking child is not wrong. However, the history of eugenics has been a tendency to violate Church doctrine, mercy killing in Nazi Germany, forced sterilization in California, sex selection via in vitro fertilization and embryo “selection” , aborting children with Trisomy 21 and sperm banks offering a chance to get an athletic, Harvard physician.

“ Better offspring?” Are children without Downs, better than children with Downs. Are offspring with a higher IQ better than offspring with lower IQ. You comment illustrates the basic problem with a eugenic mindset. Instead of gifts (CCC 2378), children are seen as objects, lifestyle accesories, some “better” than others.

The fact that people have used undesirable methods in the past in an effort to manage reproduction does not mean such methods are necessary. The Nazis worked factory labor to death, yet we still have factories. We do not shy away from manufacturing because the Nazis used such methods. Should we abandon manufacturing because of the Nazis?

“Better” children is simply a short hand way of describing healthier, stronger, and smarter people. Does anyone know a couple that hopes for a sick, weak, and dull child? Does it take a eugenic mindset to hope for healthy, strong, and smart children? Is it better for a child to be healthy or sick? If a parent says it is better for the child to be healthy, is that a eugenic mindset?

 

[HoppityRedux]

Can you explain exactly how society is to “manage human reproduction to produce smarter, stronger and healthier humans?”

Then, I think we could answer how those methods violate Church teaching. An abstract theory may not, but the concrete actions taken to accomplish said theories often do.

Here are some possible examples:

1. Not allowing certain people to reproduce because of their genetic makeup by sterilizing them.
2. Aborting fetuses who have genetic abnormalities.
3. IVF of “superior” eggs with “superior” sperm to create uberchildren.
4. Government determining someone’s choice for a spouse.

Sure. First, society doesn’t have to manage reproduction. It could easily be independent groups that represent a subset of society. One way is to conduct genetic testing on volunteers. Depending on the level of genetic knowledge, the pairing of certain individuals may have a higher probability of producing healthy, strong, and smart children. Subsequent marriage and mating of these people would then follow.

I think our current level of knowledge is a bit sparse, but I expect it to rapidly increase. We can dream up unacceptable ways to implement anything, but we should also look at the acceptable ways.

So, what is the ethical or religious objection to what I described? I don’t see any.

 

[didymus]

From lifesite.net/ldn/2006/nov/06112103.html

Anti-Religion Extremist Dawkins Advocates Eugenics
Says Nazi regime’s genocidal project “may not be bad”

By Hilary White

LONDON, November 21, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A leading international anti-religion crusader and supporter of Darwinian theory, Dr. Richard Dawkins, has said that the pseudo-science of eugenics that drove the Nazi regime’s genocidal project “may not be bad.”

Actually, “eugenics” is American as apple pie. It came to Germany from the US & UK.
I would encourage everyone to read The War Against the Weak by Edwin Black which gives the history of the eugenics movement.
From the authore’s site:

In the first three decades of the 20th Century, American corporate philanthropy combined with prestigious academic fraud to create the pseudoscience eugenics that institutionalized race politics as national policy. The goal: create a superior, white, Nordic race and obliterate the viability of everyone else.How? By identifying so-called “defective” family trees and subjecting them to legislated segregation and sterilization programs. The victims: poor people, brown-haired white people, African Americans, immigrants, Indians, Eastern European Jews, the infirm and really anyone classified outside the superior genetic lines drawn up by American raceologists. The main culprits were the Carnegie Institution, the Rockefeller Foundation and the Harriman railroad fortune, in league with America’s most respected scientists hailing from such prestigious universities as Harvard, Yale and Princeton, operating out of a complex at Cold Spring Harbor on Long Island. The eugenic network worked in tandem with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the State Department and numerous state governmental bodies and legislatures throughout the country, and even the U.S. Supreme Court. They were all bent on breeding a eugenically superior race, just as agronomists would breed better strains of corn. The plan was to wipe away the reproductive capability of the weak and inferior.
Ultimately, 60,000 Americans were coercively sterilized — legally and extra-legally. Many never discovered the truth until decades later. Those who actively supported eugenics include America’s most progressive figures: Woodrow Wilson, Margaret Sanger and Oliver Wendell Holmes.
American eugenic crusades proliferated into a worldwide campaign, and in the 1920s came to the attention of Adolf Hitler. Under the Nazis, American eugenic principles were applied without restraint, careening out of control into the Reich’s infamous genocide. During the pre-War years, American eugenicists openly supported Germany’s program. The Rockefeller Foundation financed the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute and the work of its central racial scientists. Once WWII began, Nazi eugenics turned from mass sterilization and euthanasia to genocidal murder. One of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute doctors in the program financed by the Rockefeller Foundation was Josef Mengele who continued his research in Auschwitz, making daily eugenic reports on twins. After the world recoiled from Nazi atrocities, the American eugenics movement — its institutions and leading scientists — renamed and regrouped under the banner of an enlightened science called human genetics.

 

[rlg94086]

Oh, none at all…just a lack of effectiveness.

I doubt you would have too many people sign up for such a system. It is like arranged marriages. You may be successful in linking up genetic matches, but that doesn’t mean the couple will get along, find each other attractive, etc. Their are dating/coupling services now such as eHarmony, but the intent is the initial match-up. You could add genetics to the list, but it would not hit a large enough portion of the population to be effective.

Sure. First, society doesn’t have to manage reproduction. It could easily be independent groups that represent a subset of society. One way is to conduct genetic testing on volunteers. Depending on the level of genetic knowledge, the pairing of certain individuals may have a higher probability of producing healthy, strong, and smart children. Subsequent marriage and mating of these people would then follow.

I think our current level of knowledge is a bit sparse, but I expect it to rapidly increase. We can dream up unacceptable ways to implement anything, but we should also look at the acceptable ways.

So, what is the ethical or religious objection to what I described? I don’t see any.

 

[rlg94086]

No argument that it started with Americans, but the nazis are the ones who actually tried to implement it on a grand scale. You could similarly say that our Republic is as European as Apple Clafoutis…

Actually, “eugenics” is American as apple pie. It came to Germany from the US & UK.
I would encourage everyone to read The War Against the Weak by Edwin Black which gives the history of the eugenics movement.
From the authore’s site:

 

[Jasny]

I hope some of these famous converts, like Alex Jones, put there publicity against these Eugenics people

 

[HoppityRedux]

Oh, none at all…just a lack of effectiveness.

I doubt you would have too many people sign up for such a system. It is like arranged marriages. You may be successful in linking up genetic matches, but that doesn’t mean the couple will get along, find each other attractive, etc. Their are dating/coupling services now such as eHarmony, but the intent is the initial match-up. You could add genetics to the list, but it would not hit a large enough portion of the population to be effective.

OK. So we have established there is no ethical or religious objection to managed reproduction per se, only to the way it may be implemented. And we can say that about lots of things.

So, what’s wrong with Dawkins ideas about managed reproduction? His ideas on this do not demand unacceptable implementation methods.

 

[gilliam]

OK. So we have established there is no ethical or religious objection to managed reproduction per se, only to the way it may be implemented. And we can say that about lots of things.

So, what’s wrong with Dawkins ideas about managed reproduction? His ideas on this do not demand unacceptable implementation methods.

I am not sure I am following this discussion. Can you link to Dawkin’s ideas about managed reproduction? The OP said:

Dawkins’ campaign against religion has led him to publish a book, “The God Delusion”, in September this year and he is one of the instigators of the notion, popular with journalists, that the Catholic Church’s opposition to artificial contraception will result in mass starvation.

Dawkins is also a leader of the movement to gain legal “human” rights for great apes, arguing that since there is no such thing as a soul, there is no moral difference between apes and humans.

Offhand, I would say there is plenty wrong about saying God is a delusion and saying that great apes are equal to humans since there is no soul. But somehow I don’t think that is what you were alluding to.

 

[rlg94086]

Sure, but Dawkins didn’t quite word things the way you did…

“if you can breed cattle for milk yield, horses for running speed, and dogs for herding skill, why on Earth should it be impossible to breed humans for mathematical, musical or athletic ability?” …
“I wonder whether, some 60 years after Hitler’s death, we might at least venture to ask what the moral difference is between breeding for musical ability and forcing a child to take music lessons. Or why it is acceptable to train fast runners and high jumpers but not to breed them,” Dawkins wrote Sunday.

When you discuss breeding, there is a breeder (i.e. an active breeding program). If an individual is vain enough to believe they are going to take their “superior” genes and marry another “superior” gened individual to produce great children, that is one thing. To propose that society somehow do it is another thing entirely.

OK. So we have established there is no ethical or religious objection to managed reproduction per se, only to the way it may be implemented. And we can say that about lots of things.

So, what’s wrong with Dawkins ideas about managed reproduction? His ideas on this do not demand unacceptable implementation methods.

 

[manualman]

OK, I got bored and jumped to reply.

I must admit that I am puzzled at the outrage. If you accept that there is no God, then certain principles logically follow:

1. No God, no creator. Thus what we see around us is not creation, but a random collection of molecules, accidentally formed into complex chains that somehow reproduce. How can anybody claim that accidental molecule chains have any sort of innate dignity or worth? Foolishness. Why NOT adopt a purely utilitarian attitude if there is no Natural Law because there is no God?
2. If atheistic evolution is our origin, why NOT do like Dillon and Klebold? As I understand it, they were among the bullied class for YEARS. From their point of view, the only mystery is why they didn’t concentrate on killing the worst of the bullies instead of killing at random. Perhaps panic, fear, and adrenaline?
3. If there is no God and humans have no special soul, why not abort, do eugenics? Heck, why not just farm people as organ incubators well into adolescence? What keeps future organs fresh better than a living host? We can just keep them from developing intelligence and self-awareness by putting MTV in the nursery from the time of birth. Good enough, right?

Honestly, what DOES puzzle me is the morally upright atheist. Where do his principles come from if he rejects any sort of inherent right and wrong based on the author of life? Seems like just vestiges of his ancestors culture might be hanging on. Atheists that truly think our their ethics from scratch have a hard time NOT going off into la-la land like these fine examples.

 

[gilliam]

Honestly, what DOES puzzle me is the morally upright atheist. Where do his principles come from if he rejects any sort of inherent right and wrong based on the author of life? .

Natural Law. He can’t help it, he was born knowing, deep down, right from wrong.

 

[HoppityRedux]

I am not sure I am following this discussion. Can you link to Dawkin’s ideas about managed reproduction? The OP said:

Offhand, I would say there is plenty wrong about saying God is a delusion and saying that great apes are equal to humans since there is no soul. But somehow I don’t think that is what you were alluding to.

Dawkins might think lots of things about God and apes, But I hardly think that tells us anything about his ideas on the implementation of a managed reproduction program.

 

[HoppityRedux]

Sure, but Dawkins didn’t quite word things the way you did…

When you discuss breeding, there is a breeder (i.e. an active breeding program). If an individual is vain enough to believe they are going to take their “superior” genes and marry another “superior” gened individual to produce great children, that is one thing. To propose that society somehow do it is another thing entirely.

Dawkins doesn’t say society has to do it.