Wow... that summary really made me angry. The outstanding bias came through from just that short little bit we got from the front flap.

Oŝo-Jabe:Have the Holy Bible or the Glorious Qur'an screwed up the world? I would think some commentary on those books or the tradition that developed around them is more dangerous than the books themselves or the ideas they contain, it takes a little bit of doing to get from "Thou shall not kill" and "Love thy neighbor" to the Crusades or the Spanish Inquisition.

I think that's the point, though. In many cases it's the bastardisation and misuse of ideas once they're half-read and half-understood by the masses that creates disastrous consequences, far more than the danger posed by the original idea itself. Most Marxists will argue that Soviet totalitarianism is far removed from the ideals espoused in The Communist Manifesto. Similarly Eugenics is not endorsed by Darwin's Origin of Species, which is a scientific book, not a call to arms to engineer human society.

The Communist Manifesto has had positive impact in creating entire new schools of thought when it comes to power dynamics in society and it is the basis for many branches of critical theory in academia today. It has improved worker's rights worldwide through trade union movements. The Origin of Species advanced scientific knowledge and lay the foundation for modern understandings of biology. It's only if you look at the misuse of theory that they become dangerous books. In that way they're exactly like the Bible or Qur'an and those books really should have been included on the list!

According to the type of books in the list, the "wealth of nations" of Adam Smith, is missing...

And Iagree with Alciona. The fact that the bible and the Coran exist is enough, misanderstood or not.

Personnally, I think that the Coran is a very confusing book, from which one can understand whatever he likes, and that's why it is dangerous. The Bible reports also very violent events. The God at the time of Moses seemed to me very autocratic and unfair... But I guess that it was to sensitive to put the bible within the "10 books that screwed the world"

"Eye for Eye, tooth for tooth,..."

Alciona:
I think that's the point, though. In many cases it's the bastardisation and misuse of ideas once they're half-read and half-understood by the masses that creates disastrous consequences, far more than the danger posed by the original idea itself. Most Marxists will argue that Soviet totalitarianism is far removed from the ideals espoused in The Communist Manifesto.

The main problem I have with Marx is that he attributes every conflict in human society to class struggle. While there are many conflicts for which this holds true, it simply is not a universal phenomenon.

Alciona:
Similarly Eugenics is not endorsed by Darwin's Origin of Species, which is a scientific book, not a call to arms to engineer human society.

You're right. Darwin did not espouse Eugenics in "The Origin of Species". He waited to do that until he wrote "The Descent of Man".

Alciona:
The Communist Manifesto has had positive impact in creating entire new schools of thought when it comes to power dynamics in society and it is the basis for many branches of critical theory in academia today. It has improved worker's rights worldwide through trade union movements. The Origin of Species advanced scientific knowledge and lay the foundation for modern understandings of biology. It's only if you look at the misuse of theory that they become dangerous books. In that way they're exactly like the Bible or Qur'an and those books really should have been included on the list!

I think I agree with you to a point. I don't think the followers of Marx or Darwin went farther than the authors. I think Marx, Darwin, and others took workable theories and drew them to illogical conclusions all by themselves. Darwin's theory of evolution is a useful tool to biologists, but is abhorrent when it is twisted into Eugenics. (Which Darwin did)

I also believe that some of Marx's observations could be very applicable toward anthropological or sociological studies of class relations. It is a pity he felt the need to augment that with calls for revolution and wholesale seizure of personal property.

I think these ideas speak for themselves and have not been misinterpreted.

andogigi:You're right. Darwin did not espouse Eugenics in "The Origin of Species". He waited to do that until he wrote "The Descent of Man".

Actually, Darwin argued against what we now know as eugenics in The Descent of Man. He has been quoted out of context by creationists who cite his comments on how evolution affects humanity, how we nullify its effects, and the detriment it causes, but choose to leave out his emphatic statement that we should not go around killing the weaker members of society.

The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil. Hence we must bear without complaining the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely the weaker and inferior members of society not marrying so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased, though this is more to be hoped for than expected, by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage.

The closest he gets to advocating eugenics is noting that 'weaker and inferior' people tend to marry at a lower rate, and that it might be hoped that tendency would increase. Though it's interesting to note that he uses the term 'refrain' rather than 'ban'.

Ther rest of the chapter can be read here (start at page 116): The Descent of Man

Alciona:

Hence we must bear without complaining the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely the weaker and inferior members of society not marrying so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased, though this is more to be hoped for than expected, by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage.

The closest he gets to advocating eugenics is noting that 'weaker and inferior' people tend to marry at a lower rate, and that it might be hoped that tendency would increase. Though it's interesting to note that he uses the term 'refrain' rather than 'ban'.

Should Darwin be given a pass for simply "wishing" we would marry according to his dictates rather than legislating the behavior? It is a short leap of logic from the former conclusion to the latter. Consider the following, from Descent:

At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla

Again, Darwin claims to only "hope" for the above result. The reality, however, is that this concept is a short hop, skip, and a jump away from Hitlerism. What's more, Darwin never gives his definitions of "savage" and "civilized". For all of his fine ideas on biology, I still find it hard to give Darwin a pass for these ideas simply because he passively hopes they will happen rather than actively advocates their realization.

If you want to debate Darwin's racism and classism then you'll get no argument from me. His choice of language is vile by today's standards. Most writings of that time were horribly racist and classist and he was no different. But it's a long stretch to claim his racism and classism meant that he advocated eugenics.

The quote you cited is another one that is used often out of context. Here it is with its preceding paragraph (p. 135):

The great break in the organic chain between man and his nearest allies, which cannot be bridged over by any extinct or living species, has often been advanced as a grave objection to the belief that man is descended from some lower form; but this objection will not appear of much weight to those who, from general reasons, believe in the general principle of evolution. Breaks often occur in all parts of the series, some being wide, sharp and defined, others less so in various degrees; as between the orang and its nearest allies—between the Tarsius and the other Lemuridae between the elephant, and in a more striking manner between the Ornithorhynchus or Echidna, and all other mammals. But these breaks depend merely on the number of related forms which have become extinct. At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.

His statement that 'civilised races' would exterminate and replace 'savage races' and that 'anthropomorphous apes' would be wiped out is an observation, not a wish. Colonialism and imperialism were wiping out tribal peoples and higher primates, something we sadly still observe to this day. Notice he said that they 'will' not that they 'should'. Prophetic, not wishful.
(...to be continued in my next post)

(continued from the last post)

He states, and hopes, that the next stage of human evolution will occur from a more civilised state, even more civilised than the Caucasian. The antiquated use of so many commas obscures the meaning a bit, but if he had honestly hoped for wiping out non-Caucasians he would have put 'hope' in the preceding sentences instead of where he did.

His use of Australian Aborigines to exemplify a lesser stage of human development was racist and, scientists know now, erroneous. Likewise Caucasians do not represent a higher form of human development. But let's be clear: He was a racist; He was a classist; The theories he and other scientists had about human 'races' at that time were wrong. But that doesn't automatically mean he was a eugenecist, especially when he clearly stated killing the weaker members of society was evil.

andogigi:Should Darwin be given a pass for simply "wishing" we would marry according to his dictates rather than legislating the behavior? It is a short leap of logic from the former conclusion to the latter.

You really think so? I believe it's possible that I personally might have some unfortunate genetic defects. If one day I may get my DNA tested and have this confirmed, I would be inclined not to have my own biological children. At least by doing that the next generation would be a tiny bit healthier. Logically then, I would like that everyone alive today were to take up that sort of idea of "refraining to reproduce" because of the positive effects it would have on the next generation.

However there is no way I would suggest that this should be enforced, because I believe the right to reproduce (and to marry, etc.) is a human right. Not to mention that this could only be enforced properly in an authoritarian state (something which ignores more human rights), which I am definitely also opposed to.

Hence I would not call that a small leap of logic. To ignore human rights is a rather large leap really...

It's an interesting question. I have heard that certain genetic defects are being passed along today that never would have been passed along in the past. We have made improvements in medical treatment of various conditions, and also fertility treatments have made people able to reproduce who wouldn't have been able to reproduce before.

I'm sure it has plusses and minuses. People of strong mind but weak body are able to reproduce today, whereas they may have died in childhood in the past. As a result, they are able to contribute to the development of science. As a minus, we may have more people being born with certain conditions that may have died out in the past.

Physical strength is less important today than it was in our agrarian past, so we are able to profit from intellectual contributions of people who couldn't have survived to pass on their genes in the pre-technological era.

In any case, human rights mean that each person can make his or her own decision on whether to reproduce or not.

I don't see a problem with "wishing" for people to do something, and I do distinguish between wishing and mandating. I wouldn't say I agree with Darwin's idea of "wishing" that people will marry for certain genetic traits. But for example, I wish that more people would adopt rather than going through expensive fertility treatments. I would never vote for legislation to deny someone the right to do it. But I wish they would take in an existing orphan rather than adding another person to this overcrowded planet. [yes, I am aware of the difficulties and expenses associated with adoption]