In today’s world, however, we do know that humans have inherent imperfections; science has proved this fact, which has led to the pursuit of the eugenics goal. The Nazi experiments of World War Two, in pursuit of a “master race,” wrought more hardship and suffering than scientific gains. How do we differentiate our science from theirs? Are we creating something unnatural, and perhaps more harmful than good, under the guise of science and democracy? How are society and individuals affected? In the end, what are the moral and ethical implications of gene manipulation and eugenics?
There is a notion that we as humans should not attempt to know everything, as a metaphorical and very real “Pandora’s box” will open. Roger Shattuck in Forbidden Knowledge asks, “What are the unforeseen consequences to society and to individuals of forbidden knowledge thrown open?”[i] He feels, as others do, that we may be on the verge of “knowing too much too soon.”[ii] Unfortunately, curiosity is an inherent aspect of the human conscious that pushes us beyond the status quo. The effect of not pursuing knowledge and placing limits on it increases our curiosity, either for better or worse.[iii] Eugenics has seen this curiosity run amok, as scientists attempt to create a master race.
Eugenics by far is not a modem phenomenon. It is identified most with the atrocities of the Nazis, but it was first verbalized by French doctors. Prior to 1860, they saw improvement of the human race through reproduction regulation that would eliminate detrimental traits and physical degeneration. They felt that the way to achieve this would be through matrimonial legislation and medical administration of reproduction. Intellects embraced these ideas due to their expectation that government is responsible for social reform.[iv]
Eugenics fundamentally is linked to racial improvement within a nation, and that nation’s attempt at population control and social hygiene. Many embrace it, including social reformers, respected intellects, and especially those in the medical profession; “Social Democrats,” as social reformers of this nature are known, have been the most outspoken. No single group can lay claim to it, however, as it has reached across a variety of political lines; all of these groups have embraced it morally and scientifically as a way of improving human development. A fundamental tenet of the eugenics movement is that individual freedom and choices are harmful to the whole. With the pseudo-legitimacy of science, proponents of eugenics use it as way to confirm social fears and place the collective society above the individual.[v]
While many democratic nations have been less likely to adopt eugenics doctrine through law, it is not uncommon. Great Britain, the Netherlands and even some in the United States have embraced the idea at one time or another. At the turn of the century, many psychiatrists in the United States saw it as a way to curb mental illness and improve general social hygiene; it was just more scientific credence to a controversial issue.[vi] President Theodore Roosevelt was the most outspoken, warning against “race suicide” should inferior genes be passed on.[vii] Many immigration laws at the time excluded epileptics and insane persons from entering the United States, with the Supreme Court favoring sterilization bills.[viii] There was no way to challenge these experts, as many did not have the expertise needed to combat it; even further, places that did not employ so-called experts still used the language to implement control measures, making it difficult to escape the movement.[ix]
There has been resistance to eugenics and its practices nonetheless, and caused many to express their concerns. The main concern deals with individual freedom to procreate without government interference, and the misuse of any genetic information that would be obtained. For starters, how do we define what is inferior? Every eugenic policy concerns itself with inferior stock, and everyone has a different opinion of what constitutes unsuitable traits. The Germans, for instance, claimed inferior genes from Jews and Gypsies had tainted the German people; in their attempts at breeding out the inferiors, they bred the best and eliminated the rest.
The American Society of Human Genetics expresses these concerns, “…as we learn more about how genes vary and function, some individuals or institutions may be tempted to ascribe an overly deterministic influence to their role in shaping human health and potential and pursue social policies that limit or constrain reproductive freedom.” The Society sees any attempts at “coercive efforts” to restrict reproductive freedoms for anyone by governments deplorable.[x] Taking a cue from history, they argue that we are not civilized enough even now to restrict, and conversely respect, the reproductive rights of our fellow humans. The best way of improving all without control is through reproductive education; then everybody can have an educated choice in their reproduction.
Proponents of eugenics counter these arguments with a compelling one of their own. They contend that our evolution is de-evolving us today, as our intelligence is decreasing and mental illness is on the rise; this can all be attributed to the corrupting influences of society. These influences include caring for unintelligent, sickly people who reproduce and providing contraception to everyone, even though only the better bred will use it. Appropriately, the least admirable genes pass on to future generations. We, however, cannot wait for “natural selection” to breed out these bad seeds, and therefore must take it upon ourselves to do it through eugenics. Only this way can we better ourselves.[xi]
Eugenics has become inappropriately associated with evil, the proponents of it assert; they counter this by quoting the Bible. In the story of Creation, Adam and Eve eat from the tree of knowledge; it is the tree of knowledge, however, of good and evil. God did not want Adam and Eve to suffer as He loved them, but planted the tree anyway. In this environment, it is inevitable that somebody would eventually partake of the tree. Therefore, it is inevitable that man will acquire what Roger Shattuck called forbidden knowledge, and in this sense it is eugenics. In pursuit of understanding and mastery, we control our evolution even if it means pursuing the knowledge of evil. With our concepts of good and evil, good is anything benefiting the group and evil is anything that harms it. In this sense, while it may seem evil, eugenics’ intentions benefit the group, and is therefore good. No matter what, the group’s survival is paramount.[xii]
So if the group’s survival is paramount, how can it possibly be God’s will to allow us to deteriorate? If God loves us, how can He allow suffering on the scale of sickness, retardation, or even low intelligence? He does not allow this suffering, but we cause it for ourselves. His will is that we control this suffering, and the only way is through eugenics. This universally relates to “God’s want for us to be kind to each other,” in which our unkindness is allowing less-endowed future generations. God’s will is not for us to de-evolve, but it is rather for us to increase our evolution towards God. Therefore, eugenics is God’s will.[xiii]
“Reproductive patterns of each generation shape the innate character of successive generations – for better, or for worse.”[xiv] This statement holds true no matter what side of the argument one agrees; but Future Generations holds that only “for better” is best. They disagree with the idea of egalitarianism in which all people are equal at birth; they feel that it is the ideology of the political left, which gives “scientific legitimacy” to reports that associate social characteristics with others. In their opinion, “associations do not prove causation,” but socio-economic status determines one’s intelligence. They base this on the fact that smart people increase their position while lesser ones do not, which proves the correlation. Social and economic differences are not made from the environment, but rather from our birth. It is our misunderstanding of this idea that has caused our suffering, as we accept the misinformation of the liberal left. By better understanding eugenics we decrease our suffering, as belief in “…things that you don’t understand…” causes suffering.[xv]
Does the reasoning of the proponents seem logical? At first glance, one might tend to agree with them. Unfortunately, their arguments are extremely flawed. First, they attack the use of scientific evidence, and then promptly restate it to shape their own argument. Second, they selectively use Bible interpretation to fit their argument. They spout off about God’s will, His love, etc and expect that to prove their argument. If He does want us to be kind to each other and for us not to suffer, why is there hatred and suffering? For everything there is an opposite and equal reaction, so without one you cannot have the other; God’s will is irrelevant. If there is no hatred or suffering, there cannot be goodness or fortune. In other words, without a Devil there cannot be a God.
Is it also not in the Bible that God loves all His creatures? By this logic, eugenicists are stating that those born less than perfect are not God’s creatures. Whose creature are they then? Obviously, they must be the spawn of Satan. Does this seem logical? Simply because someone is born retarded, mentally ill, etc does not make them evil; it is only those who label them as such who make them evil. The only reason they label them as such is that they misunderstand them, even though that is against exactly what they warn us. How much do we understand about genes? How much do we know about God? Will our understanding really decrease suffering or increase it? For centuries, people have been coping with finding the answers of God. So far, no one religious interpretation is accepted universally. So how can we question what is God’s will? To use it as an argument for or against eugenics causes flaws in logic. Eugenicists cite the Tree of Knowledge, both good and evil; yet history has shown that the more good we understand, conversely the more evil we come to know.
Let us now turn to the issue of birth control, in particular abortion. Without getting into a discussion of it, abortion is a necessary evil in certain conditions. Rape, incest, age, etc are all prime issues for using abortion. Eugenicists, however, would use it as a simple contraceptive tool, much like a condom or diaphragm. Simply because a fetus has the potential to be weak due to their genes, eugenicists would have it destroyed; it would never reach its potential. In doing so, eugenicists would be destroying our humanity as well.[xvi] They fear our imperfections so much that any reminders of them must be destroyed. Just as humans place themselves above the natural world, eugenicists place themselves above humanity. They do not want to deal with imperfection, but instead feign from it.
Abortion is also a very individualized choice. The group cannot decide what is best for that one pregnant individual, but eugenicists would concern themselves with every potential birth. Eugenicists would decide to end a fetus based on potential risks, instead of allowing a person to make an educated decision on the matter. This goes against every individual freedom we have fought for and established.
If eugenicists have such little concern about unborn fetuses, how do you suppose they feel about those already living? What are the risks from allowing this? The mentally ill, disabled, disease-potentialed persons, etc have all been scrutinized; they are the cream of imperfection for eugenicists. Instead of reaching out and helping them, eugenicists would just rather kill them and make space for a superior individual. We have seen this occur before, in the form of cleansing. The most prevalent is “ethnic cleansing,” in which leaders kill those of imperfect religious belief and nationality. The Nazis used it as a tool for eradicating so-called imperfect people, and we now face a war in Serbia/Kosovo over the same issue; our humanity is once again witness to the evil of eugenocide. How can we allow such things to occur? The answer is we cannot; this is why we are fighting in Kosovo. We are a democratic nation, which has come to mean freedom of the individual; eugenics, however, stands for the betterment of the whole society, without concern for the individual. The more superior should not ignore the weak, but rather protect them; this is the moral duty of those in superior positions. We, the United States, cannot determine the course of action for other nations, but we can lead the way; again, this is why we are fighting in Kosovo, to set an example that this is not acceptable.
Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence that “all men are created equal”; at the time, it was not all-inclusive. However, today it has come to mean everybody, the superior and the weak; this is as it should be. The rights of individuals are our most basic; eugenicists would take those rights away and place them with the whole at large. The betterment of society is reached better through individual education on sex and contraception, not by killing potential weak links. We as humans are an imperfect creature, but this is what gives us our humanity. It is our moral and ethical duty to cease any attempts at eugenics, in pursuit of perfection. We do not understand enough to attempt such control, and this misunderstanding has led to more evil than good. In the end, it is a matter of choice: do we sacrifice the individual to better society, or do we protect the right of individual choice? Eugenicists would take away such choice.
©1999 Steve Sagarra
___________________________
[i] Roger Shattuck, Forbidden Knowledge (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1996), p. 167.
[ii] Shattuck, Forbidden Knowledge, p. 305.
[iii] Ibid., pp. 165-166.
[iv] Frank Dikotter, “Race Culture: Recent Perspectives on the History of Eugenics,” American Historical Review 103, no. 2 (1998), pp. 474-475.
[v] Dikotter, “Race Culture,” pp. 467-469.
[vi] Dikotter, pp. 470-471.
[vii] American Society of Human Genetics, “Eugenics and the Misuse of Genetic Information to Restrict Reproductive Freedom,” n.d. <http://www.faseb.org/genetics/ashg/policy/pol-30.htm> (22 April 1999), p. 2.
[viii] Richard Bissell, “Human Value,” n.d. <http://www.cntn.net/cbissell/library/value.htm> (22 April 1999), p. 1.
[ix] Dikotter, p. 470-471.
[x] American Society of Human Genetics, “Eugenics and the Misuse of Genetic Information to Restrict Reproductive Freedom,” p. 1.
[xi] Marian Van Court, “Evolution, Eugenics, and God’s Will,” n.d. <http://www.eugenics.net/papers/crown.html> (14 April 1999), pp. 2-3.
[xii] Marian Van Court, “Adam, Eve, and Evolution,” n.d. <http://www.eugenics.net/papers/AEE.html> (14 April 1999), pp. 1-2.
[xiii] Van Court, “Evolution, Eugenics, and God’s Will,” pp. 4-5.
[xiv] Future Generations, “Mission Statement,” n.d. <http://www.eugenics.net/papers/mission.html> (14 April 1999), p. 1.
[xv] Future Generations, “Mission Statement,” pp. 3-6.
[xvi] Bissell, “Human Value,” p. 2.
No comments:
Post a Comment