The difference between "genocide" and "eugenics"

In an effort to expand my horizons a little bit... I was wondering if anyone can clarify the difference between genocide and eugenics? It seems as though they are one and the same to me right now. Any help?

reply to post by G.A.G.


Wikipedia answered this for you:

en.wikipedia.org...

Genocide is a type of violent political conflict involving the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of a social group or population.[1][2] While a precise definition varies among genocide scholars, a legal definition is found in the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG). Article 2 of this convention defines genocide as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

en.wikipedia.org...

Eugenics is the "applied science or the biosocial movement which advocates the use of practices aimed at improving the genetic composition of a population," usually referring to human populations.[2] The word has almost as many meanings as there are discussions of the subject. Eugenics was widely popular in the early decades of the 20th century,[3] but has fallen into disfavor after having become associated with Nazi Germany and with the discovery of molecular evolution

that help?

reply to post by phishybongwaters
Yes and no. Ive already explored those references and I am looking for the difference in laymens terms. Thankyou much for your time though.

I believe that genocide is actually killing a whole group of people because of some perceived genetic or cultural inferiority, whereas eugenics doesn't necessarily kill people that are deemed to be genetically inferior; eg. you could forcibly sterilise or abort members of a certain race, culture, disability etc.

I think that's the main difference, and there's also a difference between ''positive eugenics'' such as vaccines and preventative medicines, and ''negative eugenics'', such as forced sterilisation and abortions.

There is not much ethical difference between genocide and negative eugenics, and you'll find they often cross-over, and those who support either are invariably the same kind of people

reply to post by G.A.G.


They're the same devil.

I think it's safe to say we all know what genocide is. Eugenics is simply a group of people who believe in population control, AKA genocide.

reply to post by Sherlock Holmes
There is not much ethical difference between genocide and negative eugenics, and you'll find they often cross-over, and those who support either are invariably the same kind of people
Ive yet to think of it in quite those terms but youre right in my view. Thankyou

reply to post by G.A.G.


I'm not sure how it can be simplified further but i will try.

Genocide is the act, or attempt, to destroy an entire race of people. What the nazis did to the jews is considered genocide.

Eugenics is about tweaking evolution. The nazis learned this from the americans, but you only ever hear of their experiments. Using eugenics they attempted to breed a super race they called the Aryans, essentially by selective breeding.

Genocide is the destroyer
eugenics is the creator

More clear?

eugenics = politically correct wipe out version , using science - for better of humanity of more sucessive genes to be able to continue .

genocide = violent wipe out version , using violence for short term control and power .

Originally posted by phishybongwaters
Genocide is the destroyer
eugenics is the creator

More clear?

That's not entirely true.

You could attempt to ''breed out'' traits of an entire sub-group of humans, thereby destroying the trait in the gene-pool.

reply to post by phishybongwaters
Thankyou and yes. I guess it might seem like a silly question to some, but I was extremely interested in others' opinions.

reply to post by Sherlock Holmes


Sure, you can selectively breed out traits and genes with Eugenics, yet people are still being created.

Genocide is death. Eugenics is extinction.

Ethical considerations aside, eugenics doesn't make any logical sense either, as natural selection is already an in built, and far more accurate, version of eugenics in nature.

Originally posted by phishybongwaters
Sure, you can selectively breed out traits and genes with Eugenics, yet people are still being created.

Genocide is death. Eugenics is extinction.

But what if the nazis had decided to sterilise all Jews instead of killing them ?

The end result would still be the same: destruction of the Jewish race/culture.

Genocide could be deemed to be ''creative'' by removing one group of people from inter-breeding with the others, thus creating a race of ''pure'' people.

genocide - when a poor nations kills people
eugenics - when a rich nation kills people

At the heart of the terms there is no difference, one just has a glossy cover to help with the sales pitch and help avoid legal ramifications. It is more of a petty legal difference like how term 'enemy combatant' was introduced to attempt to justify torture. A petition has been made to the international criminal court for the people that made this baloney up and to close down this dumb and nasty loophole.

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
Ethical considerations aside, eugenics doesn't make any logical sense either, as natural selection is already an in built, and far more accurate, version of eugenics in nature.

obvious, isn't it? one could even go so far as to say that Eugenics is the ideology of the unviable trying to prolong their existence at the expense of all others - but that sounds brutally fascist by itself, doesn't it?