Why Should They Live? The 1920s and 30s
Many people believe that eugenics is a long-discredited idea that has no part in modern civilized society. This is wildly inaccurate. Eugenics is alive and well in 2026, albeit in different ideological and legal clothing.
What began in the late 1800s as a simple idea applied to the animal kingdom soon morphed into Darwin’s “survival of the fittest” arguments for humans. This ideology was embraced by the intelligentsia in the U.S., the UK and Europe. However, it was in Germany where “survival of the fittest” was most prominently used — to rid itself of Germans with disabilities and behavioral or social flaws.
When the horrors of Nazi Germany became known, the eugenicists retreated and then reshaped the eugenic argument in more palatable terms, especially related to assisted suicide and euthanasia. However, the idea was just the same – ridding society of those deemed expendable and costly, all couched in arguments of human rights and personal autonomy.
Today, assisted suicide and euthanasia have been legalized in many countries. While initially seen as helping the terminally ill amidst suffering, assisted suicide and euthanasia have been transformed into a social obligation to consider death on demand, any time, for anyone, for any reason.
Mark P. Mostert, Ph.D., senior researcher for Able Americans, opens the 10-part series “Is Any Life Unworthy of Living?” with the following essay. To be notified of future installments in this series, please subscribe to the Able Americans email list.
Part 1 – Why Should They Live? The 1920s and 30s
Mark P. Mostert, Ph.D.
By the early 20th century, the Western world was gripped by Charles Darwin’s idea of “survival of the fittest,” which held that only the strongest and most perfect members of species, including humans, would survive. The general assumption was that weaker and “defective” humans would not survive, making humans more and more perfect over time.
There was only one problem: many of the so-called “defectives” did survive. And the sentiment of the time was that they shouldn’t. In the U.S., the UK and Europe, the eugenic movement—which called for selective “breeding” of humans towards increased perfection—was in full swing, along with ideas about how to address the “defective “ problem. For example, females with intellectual disabilities or aberrant behaviors (e.g., alcoholism, behavioral disabilities, prostitution) were routinely sterilized without their permission. This was thought to eliminate the next generation of “defectives” from ever seeing the light of day.
But those who were considered imperfect remained, and had to be destroyed. This idea was strongest in Germany, where economic hardship was severe after the first World War. Public sentiment, abetted by German—and later, Nazi—propaganda, divided the populace into those who were economically productive and those who were not. Unsurprisingly, many people with disabilities could not only not produce economically, but were seen as consuming resources with no economic payback to the wider societal good.
In 1920, a watershed moment occurred. With Germans already primed to discriminate against and maltreat people with disabilities, German legal scholar Karl Binding and psychiatrist Alfred Hoche published a widely-read paper justifying the killing of people with disabilities. In it they introduced two terms that have endured to this day: “Life Unworthy of Life” and “Useless Eaters.”
There it was: People with disabilities had no right to live because they were less than perfect and were economically useless, consuming resources that could provide better returns for the country if provided to others.
This was only the beginning. Far worse was still to come.
Mark P. Mostert, Ph.D., is senior researcher for Able Americans, a project of the National Center for Public Policy Research. Those wanting to be notified of future installments in the 10-part series “Is Any Life Unworthy of Living?” should subscribe to the Able Americans email list.