Tuesday, May 1, 2012

Did Hitler Commit Mass Murder For Science?

I doubt it.  A preliminary search of his magnum opus for the word "science" yields 42 results.  Twenty of these are words that contain "science", nineteen of which were conscience or consciences and one occurrence of subconscience.  From this it would seem that Adolf Hitler was a very conscientious individual. Incidentally, the work contains no references to Nietzsche or Darwin.

Much of the remaining references to science were things like "Art and science were in German hands."  There are three references to the conflict between religion and science.  One mentions this to state that it was not over this, but over the rights of German people that German leaders came into conflict with the Church.  Another states that the conflict is misguided.  Another takes the side of religion.  There is a reference to "political and economic science" that isn't really relevant.  There is a statement that propaganda has little to do with science.  The monarchy is supported on the basis that it gives practical support to art and science.  All cultural achievements, including those of science, come from Aryans.  He then has to explain Japanese success(it comes from Europe and would quickly vanish in the absence of contact with Europeans).  Then there is a reference to historical science.  It is more important to make sure people are physically strong and instruct people in the humanities, so they will be ready to take charge and be decisive, than to instruct them in science.  Sciences may be used to promote pride in the nation.

On the whole it does not seem that Hitler had a particularly high view of science.  In particular it seems laughable to claim that his mass murder was the result of lifting science above religion, since he seems to do the exact opposite.

When I  look for "evolution" most instances of this are variants of revolution(169 out of 183 occurrences).  Many of the remaining instances use the word in another sense from that of biological evolution, such as political or cultural evolution.  Those that were actually about biological evolution don't seem to be well informed by Charles Darwin's work, nor do the ideas particularly resemble subsequent developments in the field.  Inferior and superior races shouldn't mix, but the superior one should dominate the inferior.  The result of mixing would be something in between, according to this line of thinking.

First this implies that domination and mixing are mutually exclusive, which is at odds with the historical experience of slavery, to put it euphemistically.  Masters would often use their dominant position to mate with their female property.  Second, this is at odds with an observation that Darwin made that hybrids are often stronger than their parents.  Moreover, Darwin was an opponent of slavery.

At another point Hitler uses evolution to support the idea that individuals should make sacrifices for the greater good.  While this might sound good, it is used to argue in favor of individual participation in war.  While Darwin did have some ideas about group selection operating in humans, I don't know if he used this idea to argue in favor of war.  Subsequent developments in evolutionary biology have generally moved away from group selection.

Another instance seems ambiguous.  If Hitler was talking about biological evolution his ideas are at odds with those of Darwin and subsequent developments in the field.  He says that habits start in a single individual and then spread to others.  Finally they become instincts.

When I looked at what Hitler said about religion, here we have something.  It seems that one of the problems that he had with the Jews was that their religion dealt exclusively with practical rules for living.  It seemed focused on the survival of the Jewish race.  Aryans, in contrast, needed a religion that contained the promise of an afterlife.  However, all of this comes from a cursory glance at the text involving searches for particular words.  It might be that a more complete reading will yield a slightly different picture.

No comments:

Post a Comment