Eugenics and the Future of the Human Species

"It is clear that modern medicine has created apopulation - can we guarantee that everyone will?
serious dilemma ... In the past, there were manyHow to prevent eugenics from being appropriated
children who never survived - they succumbed toby an intrusive, authoritarian, or even murderous
various diseases ... But in a sense modernstate?Modern eugenicists distance themselves
medicine has put natural selection out offrom the crude methods adopted at the beginning
commission. Something that has helped oneof the last century by 29 countries, including
individual over a serious illness can in the long runGermany, The United States, Canada, Switzerland,
contribute to weakening the resistance of theAustria, Venezuela, Estonia, Argentina, Norway,
whole human race to certain diseases. If we payDenmark, Sweden (until 1976), Brazil, Italy,
absolutely no attention to what is called hereditaryGreece, and Spain.They talk about free
hygiene, we could find ourselves facing acontraceptives for low-IQ women, vasectomies
degeneration of the human race. Mankind'sor tubal ligations for criminals, sperm banks with
hereditary potential for resisting serious diseasecontributions from high achievers, and incentives
will be weakened."Jostein Gaarder in "Sophie'sfor college students to procreate. Modern genetic
World", a bestselling philosophy textbook forengineering and biotechnology are readily applicable
adolescents published in Oslo, Norway, in 1991 and,to eugenic projects. Cloning can serve to
afterwards, throughout the world, having beenpreserve the genes of the fittest. Embryo
translated to dozens of languages.The Nazisselection and prenatal diagnosis of genetically
regarded the murder of the feeble-minded anddiseased embryos can reduce the number of the
the mentally insane - intended to purify the raceunfit.But even these innocuous variants of
and maintain hereditary hygiene - as a form ofeugenics fly in the face of liberalism. Inequality,
euthanasia. German doctors were enthusiasticclaim the proponents of hereditary amelioration, is
proponents of an eugenics movements rooted ingenetic, not environmental. All men are created
19th century social Darwinism. Luke Gormallyunequal and as much subject to the natural laws
writes, in his essay "Walton, Davies, and Boyd"of heredity as are cows and bees. Inferior people
(published in "Euthanasia Examined - Ethical, Clinical,give birth to inferior offspring and, thus, propagate
and Legal Perspectives", ed. John Keown,their inferiority.Even if this were true - which is at
Cambridge University Press, 1995):"When thebest debatable - the question is whether the
jurist Karl Binding and the psychiatrist Alfredinferior specimen of our species possess the
Hoche published their tract The Permission toinalienable right to reproduce? If society is to bear
Destroy Life that is Not Worth Living in 1920 ...the costs of over-population - social welfare,
their motive was to rid society of the 'humanmedical care, daycare centers - then society has
ballast and enormous economic burden' of carethe right to regulate procreation. But does it have
for the mentally ill, the handicapped, retarded andthe right to act discriminately in doing so?Another
deformed children, and the incurably ill. But thedilemma is whether we have the moral right - let
reason they invoked to justify the killing of humanalone the necessary knowledge - to interfere with
beings who fell into these categories was that thenatural as well as social and demographic trends.
lives of such human beings were 'not worth living',Eugenicists counter that contraception and
were 'devoid of value'"It is this association withindiscriminate medicine already do just that. Yet,
the hideous Nazi regime that gave eugenics - astudies show that the more affluent and
term coined by a relative of Charles Darwin, Sireducated a population becomes - the less fecund
Francis Galton, in 1883 - its bad name. Richardit is. Birth rates throughout the world have
Lynn, of the University of Ulster of North Ireland,dropped dramatically already.Instead of culling the
thinks that this recoil resulted in "Dysgenics - thegreat unwashed and the unworthy - wouldn't it be
genetic deterioration of modern (human)a better idea to educate them (or their off-spring)
population", as the title of his controversial tomeand provide them with economic opportunities
puts it.The crux of the argument for eugenics is(euthenics rather than eugenics)? Human
that a host of technological, cultural, and socialpopulations seem to self-regulate. A gentle and
developments conspired to give rise to negativepersistent nudge in the right direction - of
selection of the weakest, least intelligent, sickest,increased affluence and better schooling - might
the habitually criminal, the sexually deviant, theachieve more than a hundred eugenic programs,
mentally-ill, and the least adapted.Contraception isvoluntary or compulsory.That eugenics presents
more widely used by the affluent and theitself not merely as a biological-social agenda, but
well-educated than by the destitute and dull. Birthas a panacea, ought to arouse suspicion. The
control as practiced in places like China distortedtypical eugenics text reads more like a catechism
both the sex distribution in the cities - andthan a reasoned argument. Previous
increased the weight of the rural population (ruralall-encompassing and omnicompetent plans tended
couples in China are allowed to have two childrento end traumatically - especially when they
rather than the urban one).Modern medicine andcontrasted a human elite with a dispensable
the welfare state collaborate in sustaining aliveunderclass of persons.Above all, eugenics is about
individuals - mainly the mentally retarded, thehuman hubris. To presume to know better than
mentally ill, the sick, and the genetically defective -the lottery of life is haughty. Modern medicine
who would otherwise have been culled by naturallargely obviates the need for eugenics in that it
selection to the betterment of the entireallows even genetically defective people to lead
species.Eugenics may be based on a literalpretty normal lives. Of course, Man himself - being
understanding of Darwin's metaphor.The 2002part of Nature - may be regarded as nothing
edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica has this tomore than an agent of natural selection. Still,
say:"Darwin's description of the process of naturalmany of the arguments advanced in favor of
selection as the survival of the fittest in theeugenics can be turned against it with
struggle for life is a metaphor. 'Struggle' does notembarrassing ease.Consider sick children. True,
necessarily mean contention, strife, or combat;they are a burden to society and a probable
'survival' does not mean that ravages of deathmenace to the gene pool of the species. But they
are needed to make the selection effective; andalso inhibit further reproduction in their family by
'fittest' is virtually never a single optimal genotypeconsuming the financial and mental resources of
but rather an array of genotypes that collectivelythe parents. Their genes - however flawed -
enhance population survival rather than extinction.contribute to genetic diversity. Even a badly
All these considerations are most apposite tomutated phenotype sometimes yields precious
consideration of natural selection in humans.scientific knowledge and an interesting
Decreasing infant and childhood mortality rates dogenotype.The implicit Weltbild of eugenics is static
not necessarily mean that natural selection in the- but the real world is dynamic. There is no such
human species no longer operates. Theoretically,thing as a "correct" genetic makeup towards
natural selection could be very effective if all thewhich we must all strive. A combination of genes
children born reached maturity. Two conditions aremay be perfectly adaptable to one environment -
needed to make this theoretical possibility realized:but woefully inadequate in another. It is therefore
first, variation in the number of children per familyprudent to encourage genetic diversity or
and, second, variation correlated with the geneticpolymorphism.The more rapidly the world
properties of the parents. Neither of thesechanges, the greater the value of mutations of all
conditions is farfetched."The eugenics debate issorts. One never knows whether today's
only the visible extremity of the Man vs. Naturemaladaptation will not prove to be tomorrow's
conundrum. Have we truly conquered nature andwinner. Ecosystems are invariably comprised of
extracted ourselves from its determinism? Haveniches and different genes - even mutated ones -
we graduated from natural to cultural evolution,may fit different niches.In the 18th century most
from natural to artificial selection, and from genespeppered moths in Britain were silvery gray,
to memes?Does the evolutionary processindistinguishable from lichen-covered trunks of
culminate in a being that transcends its geneticsilver birches - their habitat. Darker moths were
baggage, that programs and charts its future, andgobbled up by rapacious birds. Their mutated
that allows its weakest and sickest to survive?genes proved to be lethal. As soot from sprouting
Supplanting the imperative of the survival of thefactories blackened these trunks - the very same
fittest with a culturally-sensitive principle may begenes, hitherto fatal, became an unmitigated
the hallmark of a successful evolution, rather thanblessing. The blacker specimen survived while their
the beginning of an inexorable decline.The eugenicshitherto perfectly adapted fairer brethren perished
movement turns this argument on its head. They("industrial melanism"). This mode of natural
accept the premise that the contribution ofselection is called directional.Moreover, "bad" genes
natural selection to the makeup of future humanare often connected to "desirable genes"
generations is glacial and negligible. But they reject(pleitropy). Sickle cell anemia protects certain
the conclusion that, having ridden ourselves of itsAfrican tribes against malaria. This is called
tyranny, we can now let the weak and sick"diversifying or disruptive natural selection".
among us survive and multiply. Rather, theyArtificial selection can thus fast deteriorate into
propose to replace natural selection withadverse selection due to ignorance.Modern
eugenics.But who, by which authority, andeugenics relies on statistics. It is no longer
according to what guidelines will administer thisconcerned with causes - but with phenomena and
man-made culling and decide who is to live andthe likely effects of intervention. If the adverse
who is to die, who is to breed and who may not?traits of off-spring and parents are strongly
Why select by intelligence and not by courtesy orcorrelated - then preventing parents with certain
altruism or church-going - or al of them together?undesirable qualities from multiplying will surely
It is here that eugenics fails miserably. Should thereduce the incidence of said dispositions in the
criterion be physical, like in ancient Sparta? Shouldgeneral population. Yet, correlation does not
it be mental? Should IQ determine one's fate - ornecessarily imply causation. The manipulation of
social status or wealth? Different answers yieldone parameter of the correlation does not
disparate eugenic programs and target dissimilarinevitably alter it - or the incidence of the
groups in the population.Aren't eugenic criteria liableoutcome.Eugenicists often hark back to wisdom
to be unduly influenced by fashion and culturalgarnered by generations of breeders and farmers.
bias? Can we agree on a universal eugenic agendaBut the unequivocal lesson of thousands of years
in a world as ethnically and culturally diverse asof artificial selection is that cross-breeding
ours? If we do get it wrong - and the chances(hybridization) - even of two lines of inferior
are overwhelming - will we not damage our genegenetic stock - yields valuable genotypes.
pool irreparably and, with it, the future of ourInter-marriage between races, groups in the
species?And even if many will avoid a slipperypopulation, ethnic groups, and clans is thus bound
slope leading from eugenics to activeto improve the species' chances of survival more
extermination of "inferior" groups in the generalthan any eugenic scheme.