Do you think that people would have a more positive view on eugenics if not for the Nazis?

[sserafim]

Do you think that people would have a more positive view on eugenics if it was never used in Nazi Germany and didn't have Nazi associations?

 

[Malaria]

I think Nazi Germany was the "logical conclusion" of eugenics. People did have a positive view of eugenics until people saw the price that is to be paid when you do such a thing. We can say that it will eradicate illnesses, but I've seen the dark things it can do. But maybe I'm just biased. I've met Holocaust survivors IRL before. I just can't support it and think it's anything but an act of evil and abuse. I'm sorry.

 

[surroundedbydemons]

Do you think that people would have a more positive view on eugenics if it was never used in Nazi Germany and didn't have Nazi associations?

tricky question

If Nazi germany did not exist, I believe people would not necessarily view eugenics as more positive. There would be less extreme polarization in people's views instead. That is, people would not automatically see eugenics as something necessarily negative or positive; more people might find themselves undecided on this issue like depicted on the Orange curve

Right now people are on the Blue curve

 

[Agon321]

Certainly World War II had some influence on this.
When someone says eugenics, many people automatically think of some sadistic things.
The Nazis did very bad PR for many things. Eugenics is one of them.
Pity.
However, it is not only their fault. I think that even without them, eugenics would not be popular.
There would probably just be less negative feedback.
This is simply a controversial topic.

For example, there are people who are opponents of eugenics due to religion.
They believe that the human species should not play God.
I have a completely different opinion.
Our species must play God if it wants to survive.

I fully support eugenics, even despite previous events.
I don't see anything immoral about it.
I hope that eugenics will become more widespread in the future.

 

[ijustwishtodie]

I think so. It feels like many people just randomly woke up one day and suddenly had the view that eugenics is bad spontaneously appear in their mind and it seems like they associate nazi's with eugenics. Eugenics just means to selectively choose better genetics for the population which is a concept that I support and agree with. It has nothing to do with disabled people who already exist but rather to beings who don't exist yet. If it wasn't for the nazi's, I feel like such a concept wouldn't be frowned upon as it makes no logical sense to want to intentionally birth people who are at an automatic disadvantage when dealing with the struggles that life causes

 

[Dr Iron Arc]

Maybe, but I think we'll be able to get away with a more acceptable form of it in the future thanks to CRISPR gene technology. It's crazy what that stuff could purportedly do.

 

[Disappointered]

Yes. And there's a lot of hypocrisy. In the future, it won't be called eugenics but it will be very similar.

 

[MyChoiceAlone]

you probably make me google more words than any other

 

[xinino]

No relation, contemporary opposition of eugenics is embedded in political spectrum ideologies.

 

[sserafim]

No relation, contemporary opposition of eugenics is embedded in political spectrum ideologies.

Wdym. Why do you think it is?

 

[xinino]

Wdym. Why do you think it is?

Eugenics can be applied to today, but based on a framework from left-to-right-wing politics, in general, the left opposes it because it is against the concept of equality, "but it can be applied if the principle of equality is respected," "which is impossible to do," so the left will reject it anyway. In right-wing politics, there are conservatists who don't openly support it; "they are more concerned about preserving the previous form of society." Far-right extremists are the only ones who support