Originally posted by @eladarThe "euthanasia" program was Nazi Germany's first program of mass murder. It predated the genocide of European Jewry (the Holocaust) by approximately two years. The program was one of many radical eugenic measures which aimed to restore the racial "integrity" of the German nation. It aimed to eliminate what eugenicists and their supporters considered "life unworthy of life": those individuals who—they believed—because of severe psychiatric, neurological, or physical disabilities represented both a genetic and a financial burden on German society and the state.
So they were not killing off handicapped kids?
Child "Euthanasia" Program
In the spring and summer months of 1939, a number of planners began to organize a secret killing operation targeting disabled children. They were led by Philipp Bouhler, the director of Hitler's private chancellery, and Karl Brandt, Hitler's attending physician.
On August 18, 1939, the Reich Ministry of the Interior circulated a decree requiring all physicians, nurses, and midwives to report newborn infants and children under the age of three who showed signs of severe mental or physical disability.
Beginning in October 1939, public health authorities began to encourage parents of children with disabilities to admit their young children to one of a number of specially designated pediatric clinics throughout Germany and Austria. In reality, the clinics were children's killing wards. There, specially recruited medical staff murdered their young charges by lethal overdoses of medication or by starvation.
At first, medical professionals and clinic administrators included only infants and toddlers in the operation. As the scope of the measure widened, they included youths up to 17 years of age. Conservative estimates suggest that at least 5,000 physically and mentally disabled German children perished as a result of the child "euthanasia" program during the war years.
https://www.ushmm.org/wlc/mobile/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005200
Originally posted by @freakykbh[/b]I must have missed the "Darwin caused the holocaust" part of this quote.
Actually, not wrong.
There are a considerable amount of scholarly research papers which consider the topic, nearly all of them concur on the point...Historians disagree about whether Nazis embraced Darwinian evolution. By examining Hitler’s ideology, the official biology curriculum, the writings of Nazi anthropologists, and Nazi per ...[text shortened]... al inequality, the necessity of the racial struggle for existence, and collectivism.
Again, a key tenet of Darwinian evolution clearly depends on genetic variability for species fitness. A eugenics program killing all the people who are different undermines organismal fitness.
Are you simply arguing that the Nazis misinterpreted what natural selection means? Or do you not know what it means?
Originally posted by @eladarUhh? You're off the rails here. What the heck does any of this have to do with natural selection. Eugenics is entirely different. There's a reason natural selection is not mentioned once in this article, since it has nothing to do with what the Nazi's did.
The "euthanasia" program was Nazi Germany's first program of mass murder. It predated the genocide of European Jewry (the Holocaust) by approximately two years. The program was one of many radical eugenic measures which aimed to restore the racial "integrity" of the German nation. It aimed to eliminate what eugenicists and their supporters considered "life u ...[text shortened]... ogram during the war years.
https://www.ushmm.org/wlc/mobile/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005200
Originally posted by @whodeyWe eat pigs (well some religions do), not humans. So we don't treat them the same. What's your point?
So cows are different from pigs on a genetic level, yet we treat them the same.
Again, what makes humans different from cows or pigs? Or are you a PETA person who thinks animals should have human rights?
Originally posted by @wildgrassWhen society does not allow for natural selection, eugenics is a way of achieving a superior population.
Uhh? You're off the rails here. What the heck does any of this have to do with natural selection. Eugenics is entirely different. There's a reason natural selection is not mentioned once in this article, since it has nothing to do with what the Nazi's did.
Originally posted by @eladar[wait for it....wait for it .......] ..... Therefore, it is entirely distinct concept that is decidedly not Darwinian.
When society does not allow for natural selection, eugenics is a way of achieving a superior population.
"When society does not allow for fishing off the pier, skeet shooting is a way of achieving a superior recreational activity. Therefore, fishing caused skeet shooting."
makes perfect sense.
Originally posted by @wildgrassLook at who they were killing off and why.
[wait for it....wait for it .......] ..... Therefore, it is entirely distinct concept that is decidedly not Darwinian.
"When society does not allow for fishing off the pier, skeet shooting is a way of achieving a superior recreational activity. Therefore, fishing caused skeet shooting."
makes perfect sense.
Originally posted by @wildgrassDoes a society that supports its weak and punishes its strong allow for natural selection?
All these posts and quotes and not a single thing linking eugenics to natural selection. It doesn't even make logical sense to link the two. I don't think you know what you're talking about.
Originally posted by @wildgrassHow are pigs and cows and humans different other than slight variations in genetics?
We eat pigs (well some religions do), not humans. So we don't treat them the same. What's your point?
Those of faith think mankind is made in the image of God, therefore, they have been set apart from the animal kingdom and have natural rights that animals do not have in regard to life and liberty.
Originally posted by @wildgrassWhat is all this talk about natural selection?
[wait for it....wait for it .......] ..... Therefore, it is entirely distinct concept that is decidedly not Darwinian.
"When society does not allow for fishing off the pier, skeet shooting is a way of achieving a superior recreational activity. Therefore, fishing caused skeet shooting."
makes perfect sense.
The discussion should be about Darwin talking about the weak being able to reproduce and how that is weakening the human gene pool.
If you want a specific genetic result then scientists know how to breed livestock and plants for desirable traits. Why not do this with humans?
Originally posted by @wildgrass(eyes roll)
Yes I have read the Bible. It's a book, not a religion. Literally hundreds of religions are based off it. These religions don't have morals. They have teachings and values that differ from each other.
How would you then define morals?
1 edit
Originally posted by @whodeyYou're doing that Us vs. You thing again with the "those of faith" argument. Many religious people and scholars see modern science as a boon to their faith, not an undermining force.
How are pigs and cows and humans different other than slight variations in genetics?
Those of faith think mankind is made in the image of God, therefore, they have been set apart from the animal kingdom and have natural rights that animals do not have in regard to life and liberty.
Most adult pigs are smaller than people (with notable exceptions). They have tails and walk on 4 legs, unlike humans. They have long snouts.
And yet if I showed you a side-by-side comparison of hearts from pig and human, you'd have a hard time telling the difference. The valves of pig hearts can be transplanted into human hearts and they work fine. There are sooo many similarities between our proteins and physiology and DNA and even behavior that you would need willful ignorance to dismiss.
So of course we have notable differences with other species. Why does it bother you that we are similar in many ways?
Originally posted by @wildgrassAbsolutely? So you believe that natural selection is wrong.
Absolutely. Can we refer to it as an "ecosystem" instead of a "society"?