Fair enough. I'll list my own conclusions beginning with Darwinism, and if you can show them to be irrational, I'll rest my case.
Beginning with Darwinism itself, it proposes that species adapt over time through small changes in their genetic pool through propagation, mutation and selection of the fittest. It also proposes that it is not necessarily the strongest that survive, but those that are most responsive to change. Am I right about all of this so far?
If that is true, then it follows that any species which is to survive must possess some trait that aids its ability to survive in the face of drastic change, and that it is drastic change which enables these traits to become predominant within a population by eliminating a substantial number of individuals that do not possess it.
It is very reasonable to assume through human experience that within our species, traits such as intelligence, good eye sight, hearing and strength, etc., are traits that help us to adapt to change in our environments. But if we, through our own inventive ways, sufficiently conquer nature and minimize the effects of these drastic changes, then the very mechanism which has aided in the development of our 'superior' traits will itself be subverted if we continue in our ways. In fact it can be observed that through the practice of modern medicine, the lives of countless individuals are preserved where they would have died if left unattended. In this case we should expect some of these traits to degenerate over time at the very least.
So then, if we are to avoid the degeneration of our abilities to survive, the reintroduction of adverse circumstances which cause the deaths of the 'unfit' could be a solution to this problem.
Granted, this in no way defines exactly what it is to be 'unfit' or what a society should do, but I believe it sufficiently backs up my point that there is a logical implication between Darwinism and genocide.
Not necessarily. If for some odd reason, Aunt Bee rose to power in Hitler's place, I seriously doubt that there would have been a holocaust even if she was a fascist. Hitler was a madman, and people don't tend to listen to madmen unless they make sense. He might not have been a reasonable man, but I don't think he would have been so successful in his agenda if his solution itself was completely irrational.
Ok, you've drawn a line through some points and it appears to make sense and connect them, but it ignores some other, crucial points.
First is the very basic idea that evolution is only and ever a *descriptive* process. It places no judgment and prescribes no action. Many different courses of action--most commonly, none--can be derived from it, and which one a person chooses speaks only about *that person* and not evolution.
Second, it is just as reasonable, if not more so, to note that our manipulation of our environment allows for *more* mutations to occur, as ones that might be weak *at this moment* are allowed to survive. It is entirely possible that, should should some catastrophe occur, a weird mutation that might be considered a weakness now could prove useful. Deliberately killing off people who bear some trait could be our undoing. Example--those born blind will survive in darkness better than those who are used to seeing. Those who are fat will survive cold better, and those who are thin, heat. A population under constant stress will evolve only in a certain direction. A population that is allowed to flourish has much more potential.
Related to the second point is the fact that humans are not very good at figuring out what is a weakness and what is a strength. The first reason is simple prejudice--we see as "perfect" what is presented to us as such from early childhood. This is compounded with the fact that genetic traits are often bound together in surprising ways. Take the little white vegetable that looks like an egg and cross-breed it to try to make it bigger, just bigger, and for some reason, it turns purple and bizzarely shaped. Take foxes and breed them to reduce their anxiety with humans, and the color of their coats change and they begin to bark. In humans, there does appear to be a genetic connection between high intelligence and poor eyesight (reading does not permanently affect the eyes, just makes things blurry for a few minutes after). And let's not ignore the connection between sickle cell anemia and malaria.
Related to both of these facts, there is the point that a person who is weak in one way may be very strong in others, such that they *do* benefit the species, even though they would not survive in a more aggressive climate. A person with muscular dystrophy may be absolutely brilliant, but they wouldn't survive a day in the wild.
Also, no species has any duty to direct its own development. We are allowed to derive joy from our existence and our friends without worrying that our great-great-great-great-great grandchildren may be slightly less well off because of it.
And then, related to one of the above points, there is the point that we cannot predict the future. If we deliberately stress the species to point evolution in one direction, we could be caught with our pants down when the opposite happens. We could prepare ourselves so that, when only the strong survive, we'll be ready...and then find out that only the smart survive because *nobody* is strong enough. Or vice versa. Again, if we let the mutations build, then when catastrophe strikes, the chances are greater that *some* will survive.
So, if we start with the base of evolution and walk straight from there to see what the options are...this is not a reasonable course of action.
If we've *already decided* that some people are weak or offensive, and we wish to kill them off, then evolution presents a cover story, unless people look too closely.
This course of action only seems "reasonable" if you start at the conclusion and work backwards.
