If the Nazi's never came and perverted the notion of eugenics, then how would it have been viewed by the rest of the world? I mean, could the concept of it end up getting very popular as it was at first?
Perceptions of eugenics without the Nazi's?
- Thread starter MrNumbahOne
- Start date
How come? Shouldn't they focus on genetic engineering then to eliminate genetic problems and poor traits and such?
considering some countries kept practising eugenics up till the 70s OTL (sweden, some us states etc) with forced sterilisation, i think it might go on much longer. And the discovery of DNA would maybe change the direction, but i would expect a lot of money would be invested in finding ways to change & detect these so called unwanted traits (only to discover that most of them aren't in the genes)
I'd actually expect earlier and more directed research into epigenetics, and probably into the emergent effects of multiple genes.
As in all these things, with a sufficiently totalising narrative even not finding evidence isn't much of a problem - in many forms of eugenics not finding a gene is helpful, as it makes it easier to continue to make selections on grounds of simple prejudice with no nasty facts to get in the way.
Would that spell the end or a significant decrease in eugenics or would it just leave the scientific basis of the idea to thrive?
Without the Nazis to show the absolute worst excesses of eugenics I imagine that most countries will proudly continue to practice forced sterilization until Human rights movements manage to create significant opposition to it, likely in the 60s and 70s. However eugenics itself won't be discredited, especially once the human genome is sequenced allowing us a greater understanding of what alleles pass on what traits. Genetic engineering will be more socially acceptable, though I believe that it may be end up be forced on social undesirables to prevent them from having children with certain perceived traits.
This is a pretty interesting topic mostly in that I believe the Nazi's actions discredited a lot of the "Progressive's" ideas at the time that race or ethnicity played a major role in defining the characteristics of specific groups of people. Moreso, it rightly showcased the idiotic nature of the belief that one's religion, ethnic background, or skin tone predetermined physical and mental nature by showing the stark ugliness of eugenics.
As terrible as this sounds, the Holocaust may have been a good thing simply because it became a popular example of why the idea of racial eugenics is extremely misleading. Of course, there have been many holocausts before the most popular one which is referenced in this topic such as genocide committed by the Belgians against Africans in Central Africa during the late 19th century, the Armenian Genocide against various Christian groups during World War I, or killing off native tribes in Australia and the Americas. Of course, there are many more but they are too numerous to mention here.
All this being said, the idea of nature over nurture does have it's place but definitely not in the realm of the aforementioned factors.
As terrible as this sounds, the Holocaust may have been a good thing simply because it became a popular example of why the idea of racial eugenics is extremely misleading. Of course, there have been many holocausts before the most popular one which is referenced in this topic such as genocide committed by the Belgians against Africans in Central Africa during the late 19th century, the Armenian Genocide against various Christian groups during World War I, or killing off native tribes in Australia and the Americas. Of course, there are many more but they are too numerous to mention here.
All this being said, the idea of nature over nurture does have it's place but definitely not in the realm of the aforementioned factors.
I imagine it would prune it significantly as many things thought to be heredity are proven not to be.
and the results of which the US happily accepted and continued (on smaller scale) post-warI just wonder in this TL, if the Nazi's didn't do all the tests in camps or whatever on how long people can survive in freezing water etcetc, does that mean all our future Eugenicists freeze to death due to inadequate snow-wear?
Oh yes, I know my fantastic bomber jacket owes it's providence to scientific data collected from Holocaust victims, I just wondered if we're butterflying the Nazi 'Science' as part of their no eugenics package (instead of just leaving them with a romp in Europe and a virulent anti-Semitism)
Most of what the Nazis believed was already an intellectual norm back then, the Nazis only took the crap of their time to the practical and logical extremes, thus making these ideas unlikable. But ideas of racial superiority, anti-Jewish paranoias, eugenics and so on were very much the norm, even in the Western countries that fought Nazi Germany, and not necessarily in filo-Nazi circles.
Ergo, without the Nazis, eugenics would be much more accepted.
Ergo, without the Nazis, eugenics would be much more accepted.
Well I must admit, having done some reading on the genocides in South West Africa under the Kaiser's regime, as well as accounts of 'Human Zoo's' in Berlin and so on and so forth, the situation in Germany wasn't exactly radicalised by the Nazis, I think it's just that they took concrete action on the problem, but they were not the first, as the Herero and Nama people of Namibia will tell you. It's my belief that the Kaiser's regime wouldn't have perpetrated a Holocaust as the Nazis did, but if Ober Ost had come to pass, there would have been massive deathtolls as they worked the local populace to death and the justification for the slave labour would have been the eugenic inferiority of Slavs to Germans.
Long and short of it, I'm coming to the conclusion that Eugenics is a perversion, Nazi's or no.
Long and short of it, I'm coming to the conclusion that Eugenics is a perversion, Nazi's or no.
There's different ways of implementing eugenics as a whole, and several practises of today may be described as such on a limb (abortions, condoms).
The sperm-banks of today is providing an eugenics-like service; the donors, in most cases, have to be healthy, smart and handsome, and their hair-colour is preferably in a different shade than red.
Once DNA-sequencing becomes even cheaper and more effective, finding the smartest, healthiest, handsomest, non-red-hairiest sperm will become even easier.
^The above isn't illegal, if the Nazis didn't taint the notion of human selective breeding like they did, we could have designer-babies, something akin to Gattaca atleast, as commonly accepted as sperm-banks.
It won't become as crazy as in Draka ofcourse (atleast not yet), but you could see a world with sterilization programs aimed towards criminals and eliminating various inheritable diseases and/or the active support for "genetically fit" sperm-donation.
It may be immoral, but morals are some of the most subjective things there is.
The sperm-banks of today is providing an eugenics-like service; the donors, in most cases, have to be healthy, smart and handsome, and their hair-colour is preferably in a different shade than red.
Once DNA-sequencing becomes even cheaper and more effective, finding the smartest, healthiest, handsomest, non-red-hairiest sperm will become even easier.
^The above isn't illegal, if the Nazis didn't taint the notion of human selective breeding like they did, we could have designer-babies, something akin to Gattaca atleast, as commonly accepted as sperm-banks.
It won't become as crazy as in Draka ofcourse (atleast not yet), but you could see a world with sterilization programs aimed towards criminals and eliminating various inheritable diseases and/or the active support for "genetically fit" sperm-donation.
It may be immoral, but morals are some of the most subjective things there is.