Kurt, you do have a long term view I will grant you that. You are thinking of 1000s of generations down the line evolving in isolation, allopatric speciation is the term that should be used. I am rather well versed in the science of genetics and the pseudo-science of eugenics. Hey, if you want to isolate yourself and only interbreed with a small selection of humanity for 1000 of generations in order to create a new species, knock yourself out. Sorry for suggesting that was in any way shape or form like inbreeding on a personal level. That philosophy does sound inbreed however.
Creating a super race might be noble notion, hmmmm, where have I heard that before. Segue into the fact the Japanese thought they were a superior race and therefore other races could and should be treated like animals. Had the Japanese Imperial Forces (and Nazis) treated others as humans with rational human motives then they should have been able to carve out a sphere of influence that could be in existence today.
I appreciate the civil and well thought-out tone of your post.
In the past, there had been enough geographic barriers to allow the human species to diverge into differing races or subspecies. I view that genetic divergence as a positive thing. I agree that it’s dangerous when any one group of people decides it’s so superior to the rest that they’re allowed to treat the rest poorly. (As the Japanese had during WWII.)
Feeling slightly superior may be a good thing, at least insofar as it motivates one to live up to one’s own self-image. Some Canadians may believe that Canadians in general tend to be a little more civilized, better-educated, and environmentally conscious than are Americans. Similarly, some Americans may see themselves as superior to Canadians. Obviously when two groups of people think they’re superior to the other, they can’t both be right. But that’s not the point. A little friendly, healthy competition can be a good thing, as long as nobody ends up calling anyone else subhuman, or sending them on death marches, or otherwise taking things to an extreme.
I think it may be part of human nature to draw a circle. The people within the circle get treated well, the people outside the circle get treated like animals. Witness the way Latin America’s ruling elites sometimes treat the common people, or the actions of the drug lords who had taken over Mexico, or the workplace conditions in many Third World countries. These things did not result from theories of racial superiority and inferiority. People were quite capable of creating in groups and out groups in the absence of such theories. Even sports teams can represent an excuse to draw circles; with the fans of one’s own team in the same circle as you, and the fans of rival teams being part of rival circles.
The word eugenics can mean different things to different people. The word can sometimes be used to describe the belief that one race is superior to all others. Normally researchers who have announced that one race is superior began with specific conclusion in mind, and attempt to find ways to justify that conclusion. I’ll agree this is pseudoscience, for the same reason that a “begin with the conclusion” approach would result in pseudoscience if applied to any field of inquiry. One must always be open to hearing the opposite of the preferred conclusion for work to be considered genuine science.
The word eugenics can also be used to describe the concept of applying the principles of genetic science to human beings, in an effort to change the gene pool in some specific way. This is not pseudoscience, any more than selectively breeding better crops, faster horses, or specific breeds of dogs is pseudoscience.