>>11394472It seems stupid to apply these descriptive terms of reproductive success or environmental for what we consider in bettering human society, because we function more broadly than wild animals. Eugenicists often make woeful leaps in logic and consistency, to presume there's some great absolute of betterness that's found in standards of evolutionary biology that can be applied socially. But there really isn't.
So-called genetically or bodily unfit individuals, in the eugenics scheme, serve perfectly adequate functions in society, even if just implicit ones, or their disabilities become null factors, or even factors of success. Take Helen Keller, severely disabled, but her handicaps became her focal point of success, and an interesting point of study in how we understand our sense modalities. I think similar things can be said of other types, like mental retards and cripples. They've been demonstrated to be capable of doing various works and labors.
Also, as our medical technology progresses, there's no good pragmatic reason why we can't simply eradicate and alleviate certain human maladies, rather than just exterminate or sterilize the individual in question. Take some deadly immune disorder or disease. An individual can be otherwise normal and functional, even with a rare disease.
The only real class that this profits are industrialists and corporatists. Eliminating undesirables means profit margins might rise by a percentage.
