Eugenics can be defined as ‘The belief and practice of improving the genetic quality of the human population. The term has a legacy of association with involuntary castration and genocide, but these crimes can be considered the method of achieving eugenetic ideal, not the principle of it. The concept of genetic quality is also loaded, because what determings the quality of ones genes, Darwin teaches us it is circumstances and survival, which makes it a subjective thing. Eugenetics practiced by an individual thus ends up looking for traits of the ideal human according to that individual, in Hitlers case it was Aryianism, an composit imaginary master race.
Today Hitler is dead, and one would assume in his absence normal evolution has resumed, but that is not the case. Normal evolution assumes there is no intention or thought behind the succes or failure of individuals in life, whether they are man or woman. But in our society there clearly is thought behind it. Many forces conspire to shape humanity and a large part of those forces are ideals concepts served by people. Our succes in life and our succes at creating offspring is not determined by nature, not from the moment we recieve our first live saving medical treatment, not from the moment we enter a modern economy. Today, humanity is shaping its genes as if it was nature, and within humanity philosophies and beliefs are shaping genes towards their ideal.
If we accept that we discriminate certain individuals in our modern economy simply because they are genetically less capable of living up to its ideal (as it is portrayed in the media for instance, there are many to choose from), then we can ask what happens to the people that are least capaple. Without any intent any society will create advantage for those capaple of living up to its ideals, and as a consequence any society will ‘punish’ those that can’t. On a wider scale all individuals on our planet form a hierarchy of support where individuals help each other achieve their ideals, and there is a bottom to this hierarchy or disconnected, less capable, less organized, disadvantaged people. There always will be.
The question is what happens to those people on the bottom of the support hierarchy. On a global base, they die. They die in Gaza, they die in Syria, they die in Iraq. They don’t have enough support to survive. One would say ‘But they are not genetically inferior’ but inferiority is subjective, it means rejected by someone that feels superior (which usually means that person is simply a narcissist). People dying in war zones are simply not supported or protected enough and their genes will disappear in accordance with the ideal of those that survive.
Already, by taking unsupported war victims as an example, we can identify the divide of lethal vs. non-lethal eugenics. War is lethal eugenics with respect of the combined ideal of all survivors. Everyone that does not support fighting factions to stop fighting is complicit in this process. There are many that are totally fine with syrians killing syrians or Isreal killing gazans, or sudanese tribes killing each other. There is a point to be made in favour of allowing these wars to go on, and that is that the most agressive individuals will be killed and we will be left with a more bening population. But this kind of thinking moves us into the direction of Hitler style eugenics. One that was also lethal.
Non lethal eugenics tries to prevent the birth of individuals that have a high chance of suffering in our society. It happens along side with the lethal kind with more or less prominence, dependent on which country or region you consider. Non lethal eugenics is driven by a core belief that a life is important, no matter how weak or inadequate. It is driven by love. By supporting all life that occurs there will still be eugenic forces, but humans won’t destroy their own kind, and no individual can deliberately distort our evolution.