Ep 22 Darwinian Racism in Hitler's Germany

Today we’re going back in time to 2020 when Dr. Miller went 1 on 1 with Richard Weikart to discuss how the Darwinian worldview helped create the scientific racisms of the 20th century through the eugenics movement. The show goes beyond the history and explores how this Darwinian thinking influences science, religion, and public policy today.

RESOURCES FROM THE SHOW

1. The Death of Humanity: And the Case for Life by Weikart

2. Hitler’s Ethic: The Nazi Pursuit of Evolutionary Progress by Weikart

3. Preaching Eugenics: Religious Leaders and the American Eugenics Movement by Christine Rosen (Author)

4. Unbelievable debate with Peter Singer that Richard mentions during our interview.

Why Should We Care if Hitler Believed in Darwinism?

Key Themes and Ideas From the Show

Definition and Origins of Eugenics

1. Eugenics, derived from Greek words meaning "good heredity," began in the 1860s with Francis Galton.

2. It aimed to improve human heredity through selective breeding and prevention of reproduction among those deemed to have negative traits.

3. A key fear at the time was that human heredity was declining, with an increase in people with disabilities and mental problems.

4. Positive eugenics: promoted reproduction of those with "good" traits (intellectual, physical, etc.).

5. Negative eugenics: aimed to prevent reproduction of those deemed to have "negative" traits (mental illness, physical disabilities).

Eugenics in the United States & Nazi Germany

1. Many U.S. states had compulsory sterilization laws, especially for the mentally ill and those with hereditary conditions. Approximately 60,000 people were forcibly sterilized in the United States.. California had the most sterilizations (~30,000).

2. The 1927 Buck v. Bell Supreme Court decision upheld the legality of compulsory sterilization; Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said, "Three generations of imbeciles are enough."

3. Nazi Germany took eugenics to extreme levels, starting with compulsory sterilization in 1933 and later killing people with disabilities.

Eugenics and Racism

1. While eugenics is not inherently racist, it was historically closely linked to racism in the early 20th century.

2. Eugenics was often used to reinforce ideas of racial superiority and inferiority.

3. Some groups (Black Africans, Australian Aborigines, etc.) were viewed as having lower mental and moral capacities based on racist assumptions.

4. Darwin's ideas were used to support racist ideology, though Darwin did not originate racist thinking.

Eugenics and Scientific Consensus

1. Eugenics was widely supported by the scientific community of the time, including geneticists, physicians, and anthropologists.

2. Eugenics was a mainstream subject taught in colleges and universities.

3. The episode notes that "scientific consensus" does not imply moral rightness and should not be a sole consideration in forming public policy.

Eugenics and the Church

1. Some segments of the church (particularly theologically liberal groups) embraced eugenic ideas, while other segments were resistant.

2. The Catholic Church opposed compulsory sterilization and euthanasia on moral grounds.

3. There were eugenics sermon contests which indicates a significant presence in some congregations.

Eugenics in the Modern Era

1. Eugenics persists today in modified forms, particularly through the promotion of transhumanist ideas and the selection of certain traits through amniocentesis and abortion.

2. The episode highlights the case of Iceland, which has virtually eliminated people with Down Syndrome through pre-natal testing and abortion.

3. The issue today is less government mandated and more voluntary (individual choice).

4. The podcast argues that the morality of the practice remains the same regardless of whether it is mandated by the state or decided by an individual.

5. The language of superiority, inferiority, and the dehumanization of certain lives through labels like "weeds," "noxious," and "unfit" are still in circulation.

Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood

1. Margaret Sanger was an advocate for birth control, partly out of concern for women's health and well-being.

2. She also had connections to the eugenics movement and held racist views, hoping that birth control would limit the births of non-whites.

3. She hoped to create a "breed of thoroughbreds" through birth control.

4. The language and mindset of eugenics persist today and are sometimes applied to new categories of people.

5. The episode describes how the eugenicists of the early 20th century changed their field names to "human genetics" in order to distance themselves from the bad reputation of eugenics.

6. Scientists sometimes confuse their scientific findings with the public policy implications of their research, forgetting about other important moral and social considerations.

7. The episode argues that these questions are best addressed through moral frameworks and a consistent application of human equality.

The Importance of a Moral Framework

1. The hosts assert the need for a basis for human equality that goes beyond scientific considerations, namely a Christian worldview.

2. The concept of humans being created in the image of God is presented as the most reliable basis for valuing human life.

3. The hosts discuss how a lack of consistent moral principles can lead to dehumanization and discrimination.

4. The conversation highlights the need to re-examine what defines "value" in a human life. Is it rationality? The ability to plan for the future? Or is value inherent?

Conclusion

The podcast emphasizes the importance of understanding the history of eugenics and its connections to racism and other forms of discrimination. It calls for a careful consideration of moral principles and the importance of protecting the inherent value of all human life, regardless of disability, race, or perceived "inferior" traits. The podcast highlights the importance of not simply deferring to "scientific consensus" for guidance in matters of policy and ethics. The host of the podcast challenges the audience to begin the conversation about the value of human life in their own families.