# But, Genocide? Eugenics?

## Eugenics
People have some difficulty defining what eugenics is. This is because the most famous historically recorded instance of eugenics is itself not normally studied by the broad public, except in a very limited and superficial capacity. It generally comes down to this:
- Germans wanted to kill those that didn't look like them
- Germans took the devaluing of "non-Aryan" lives as an opportunity to perform horrific experiments

So, if someone suggests that the current situation involving lockdowns and vaccines were somehow related, you can laugh at them and state that there is no racial group that has been rounded up en masse and eradicated from our gene pool, and no people, especially not twins, have been locked up in a laboratory and been forced to undergo grotesque experiments with reckless abandon. In fact, you can find an endless of array of differences if you want to.

Sure, we can't say that these events are perfectly equivalent, but that doesn't mean they aren't worthy of comparison. In fact, I would go so far to say that if there are any lessons to have been learned from the historically significant event of the holocaust, it's that we shouldn't be so reluctant to make comparisons, for it required of a society to cease criticizing the direction of the culture so that it could reach the levels of apathy and depravity that were reached in Nazi Germany.

It is not a reasonable standard to only define eugenics as the most obviously and aesthetically offensive events which may have resulted from it. If we are to understand how a declared goal of improving the human condition might somehow become associated with in the worst expressions to come out of human beings, then we must understand the values which surround eugenics, its goals, and the ways in which it can be practiced.

What is eugenics? Greek etymology indicates that it would mean **well-born**! The concept that we can positively affectet the genetic makeup of the human race.

## Critics
Many will instantly say: "What a great idea!". Isn't it our moral imperative to develop and advance the human species or human race towards being better capable and having less of a tendency to suffer disease? Indeed, it is difficult or even impossible to argue against such a statement at face value, but to define the standard by which we understand ourselves to be fulfilling such an ideal, as well as to evaluate a given proposition, to see if it meets such a standard is where the real fun begins. Even to establish who makes the evaluation is an ever complex task, in and of itself, and we are likely not in the best position to declare such.

## Different Time
Very trye, again, and this appears to be a factor that is difficult to consolidate in the face of technological changes and buffers of resources having expanded over the course of prosperous periods of time.

The basic idea here is that what might have been a good idea in principle was derailed from its truly most utilitarian route and was, instead, used for nefarious purposes as a result of certain factors more prevalent at the time. These are:
- Limitations of technology
- A smaller subset of declared human rights
- Underdeveloped philosophies of the day
- Lack of law restricting particular idas
- The personal inclintations of those occupying positions of power in those days

## Continued
Introducing one's own artificial point of failure is another's argument by predicating an entire system of philosophy on one concrete occurrence which somehow is made to be the only delimiting reference to the idea in question. Utter lunacy for anyone to thhink this way, as though no human ever thought about the ways in which people change, cultures change, eras change. The idea that something is eugenecist is only predicated on the idea that we can influence change in ourselves and society. The limits for such changes are set to whatever humans can imagine and argue, and the limit to expressing the idea is limited by language.

The truth of the matter is that Marx imagined our state within its capacity to influence man, the subject and manner of his thought, and the ability of man to use the dialectic to affect change. That alone completes the circuit as to how man can change himself, but even more important is the stated desire to induce this self-reflective change. It does not mean that Marx was intimately involved with Darwin's system of understanding