The Jews
Don’t do what I do, do what I tell
you.
Everyone’s father
The popular impression is that the
eugenics movement was a racist, anti-Semitic Nazi ideology inspired
by Anglo-American elites.
In point of fact, eugenics also managed to
establish strong bridgeheads in Argentina, Australia, Austria,
Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, China, Cuba, Czechoslovakia,
Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Greece, Hungary, India, Italy, Japan,
Mexico, Norway, New Zealand, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal,
Rumania, Russia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and
Turkey.125 Jews played a modest but active role in the early
eugenics movement. In 1916, Rabbi Max Reichler published an article
entitled “Jewish Eugenics,” in which he attempted to demonstrate
that Jewish religious customs were eugenic in thrust.
A decade and a half later Ellsworth
Huntington, in his book Tomorrow’s Children, which was published in
conjunction with the directors of the American Eugenics Society,
echoed Reichler’s arguments, praising the Jews as being of uniquely
superior stock and explaining their achievements by a systematic
adherence to the basic principles of Jewish religious law, which he
also viewed as being fundamentally eugenic in nature.126 In the
Weimar Republic many Jewish socialists actively campaigned for
eugenics, using the Socialist newspaper Vorwärts as their chief
tribune.127 Max Levien, head of the first Munich Soviet, and Julius
Moses, a member of the German Socialist Party, believed strongly in
eugenics. A partial list of prominent German-Jewish eugenicists
would include the geneticists Richard Goldschmidt, Heinrich Poll,
and Curt Stern, the statistician Wilhelm Weinberg (coauthor of the
Hardy-Weinberg Law), the mathematician Felix Bernstein, and the
physicians Alfred Blaschko, Benno Chajes, Magnus Hirschfeld, Georg
Löwenstein, Max Marcuse, Max Hirsch, and Albert Moll.128
The German League for Improvement of the
People and the Study of Heredity was even attacked by the Nazi
publisher Julius F. Lehmann as targeted subversion on the part of
Berlin Jews.129 Löwenstein was a member of an underground resisting
the National Socialist government, and Chajes, Goldschmidt,
Hirschfeld, and Poll emigrated. In America, when the revolutionary
anarchist editor of the American Journal of Eugenics, Moses Harman,
died in 1910, Emma Goldman’s magazine Mother Earth took over
distribution. In 1933, the eugenicist and University of California
professor of zoology Samuel Jackson Holmes noted the significant
number of Jews in the eugenics movement and praised their “native
endowment of brains,” while at the same time lamenting the racial
bias suffered by the Jews, which caused many of their intellectuals
to be wary of nonegalitarian worldviews.130
The American Eugenics Society itself
counted Rabbi Louis Mann as one of its directors, in 1935.One of the
most prominent eugenicists was the American Herman Muller, whose
mother was Jewish and who received the Nobel Prize in medicine, in
1946, for his work on genetic mutation rates. A communist, Muller
spent 1933-1937 as a senior geneticist at the University of Moscow,
when he wrote a letter to Stalin proposing that the Soviet Union
adopt eugenics as an official policy. It was the eve of the Great
Purges, and Stalin definitely disapproved of the idea, at which
point Muller judged it wisest to leave for Scotland and then
returned to the United States. It was in the middle of his Moscow
sojourn that Muller’s eugenics treatise Out of the Night appeared in
the United States. In 1932, Muller had spent a year in Germany and
he was outraged by Nazi concepts and policies concerning race.
According to the National Library in Jerusalem, from the 1920s
through the 1950s, some 200 Hebrew-language Parents’ manuals were
published. These publications contained a coherent worldview, of
which eugenics formed an integral part, subjecting Jewish mothers to
an unremitting program of education, indoctrination and regulation.
During the British mandate, Jewish physicians in Palestine actively
promoted eugenics. Dr. Joseph Meir, for whom the hospital in Kfar
Sava is named, wrote in 1934:
Who should be allowed to raise
children? Seeking the right answer to this question, eugenics is
the science that tries to refine the human race and keep it from
decaying. This science is still young, but it has enormous
advantages…. Is it not our duty to insure that our children will
be healthy, both physically and mentally? For us, eugenics in
general, and mainly the careful prevention of hereditary
illnesses, has a much higher value than in other nations.
Doctors, athletes, and politicians should spread the idea
widely: Do not have children unless you are sure that they will
be healthy, both mentally and physically.131
One researcher at Ben-Gurion University
working on the topic “eugenicist Zionists,” came across a card file
with notes written by the editors of a collection of Meir’s
writings, published in Israel in the mid-1950s where the editors
call the article “problematic and dangerous” and comment that “Now,
after Nazi eugenics, it is dangerous to publish this article.”132 In
point of fact, knowledge of Jewish support for eugenics in pre-1948
Palestine was suppressed for many years.133 Dr. Max Nordau, the son
of an Orthodox rabbi, was converted to Zionism by Theodore Herzl and
became prominent in the movement. Nordau’s ideas, which including
vigorously propagandizing eugenics, became so popular in the Jewish
community that Nordau Clubs were created even in the United States.
Dr. Arthur Ruppin, the head of the World
Zionist Organization office in Palestine, wrote in his book The
Sociology of the Jews that “in order to preserve the purity of our
race, such Jews [showing signs of genetic defects] must refrain from
having children.”134
In Israel today many eugenic practices
have become widely accepted. According to Meira Weiss of the Hebrew
University of Jerusalem, In Israel, the Zionists’ eugenics turned
into a selective prenatal policy backed by state-of-the-art genetic
technology. 135
There are now more fertility clinics per capita there than in any
other country in the world (four times the number per capita in the
United States). Abortion is subsidized if the fetus is suspected to
be physically or mentally malformed.136 In cases where the husband’s
sperm is not viable, donors fill out extensive health histories. The
State supplies the sperm, which is screened for Tay-Sachs. Women
over thirtyfive routinely consent to amniocentesis tests and abort
if genetic defects are discovered. Thus, the government is actively
pursuing eugenics, although the chief motivation appears to be as
least as much quantitative as qualitative. Surrogacy was legalized
in 1996137, but only for married women. It too is paid for by the
State. Jewish religious law does not delegitimize the children of
unmarried women, thus making it possible to combine Jewish legal
principles with modern legal practices. In vitro fertilization and
embryo transfer are preferred by some rabbis as a form of fertility
treatment that does not violate the literal Halakhic precepts
against adultery138.
Curiously, some rabbis refuse to condemn the use of non-Jewish
sperm, since masturbation by non-Jews is not of explicit rabbinic
concern, and also because Jewishness is passed exclusively through
the mother. Children born to different Jewish mothers using the same
sperm donor may even marry, since “they share no substance.” Other
rabbis, however, consider the use of non-Jewish sperm an
abomination. 139
The Israeli attitude toward cloning differs considerably from that
prevalent in most other countries. Although human reproductive
cloning is currently not permitted because the technology is not yet
considered safe, the Chief Rabbinate of Israel sees no inherent
religious interdiction in reproductive cloning as a form of
treatment for infertility and even sees an advantage over sperm
donation, which by using anonymous donors might subsequently lead to
a marriage between brother and sister.140 In 1998, although more
than eight decades had passed since the appearance of Reichler’s
1916 essay, Noam J. Zohar, a professor of philosophy at Bar-Ilan
University in Israel, responded to Reichler. Noting that Reichler’s
emphatically pro-eugenics views were “shared… by more than a few
Judaic circles today,” Zohar wrote that A program of individualized
eugenics… would seem to be consonant with an attitude that was, at
the very least, tacitly endorsed by traditional Judaic teachings.
Should it make a difference if the means
for producing fine offspring are no longer determined by moralized
speculation but instead by evidence-based genetic science? It seems
to me that, insofar as the goal itself is acceptable, the change in
the means for its advancement need pose no obstacle to its pursuit.
This is so of course provided that the new means are not morally
objectionable. To work out a Judaic response to the sort of new
eugenics now looming on our horizon it will be necessary to evaluate
the various specific means that might serve a modern individualized
eugenics. I hope that some of the groundwork for that has been laid
in this examination of traditional Judaic voices.141
Return
The Suppression
of Eugenics
Democracy demands that all of its
citizens begin the race even.
Egalitarianism insists that they all
finish even.
Roger Price
“The Great Roob Revolution”
Although the attack on eugenics had been
launched in the late 1920s,142 eugenics survived even the embrace of
Nazi Germany, and in 1963 the Ciba Foundation convened a conference
in London under the title “Man and His Future,” at which three
distinguished biologists and Nobel Prize laureates (Herman Muller,
Joshua Lederberg, and Francis Crick) all spoke strongly in its
favor. Despite this upbeat note, eugenics was about to undergo a
total rout. Outraged by pictures of police dogs attacking civil
rights protesters in the South, the public found discussions of
genetic racial differences intolerable. In 1974, a large group of
black students descended upon the office of Professor Sandra Scarr
in the Institute of Child Development of the University of
Minnesota:
One graduate student in education
said he was going to kill us if we continued to do research on
black children. Another paced up and down in front of us
calling, “honkie, honkie, honkie.”
When Arthur Jensen of the University of
California at Berkeley visited the Institute in 1976, he and Scarr
were spat upon by a phalanx of radical students, some of whom
physically attacked the speakers and those who had invited him. Not
only were Jensen’s lectures regularly broken up, he also received
bomb threats, and he had to be put under constant guard.143 In March
1977, the National Academy of Sciences sponsored a forum in
Washington, D.C., on research with recombinant DNA. As the first
session began, protestors began marching down the aisles waving
placards and charts.144 Hans Eysenck at a lecture to have been
delivered at the London School of Economics was first prevented from
speaking by the chanting of “No Free Speech for Fascists!” and then
physically attacked and had to be rescued from the stage, his
eyeglasses broken and blood streaming from his face.
When his book The IQ Argument appeared
in the United States, wholesalers and booksellers were threatened
with arson and violence, and the book became almost impossible to
obtain.145 The above scenes, and many others like them, were
triggered by assertions of mean IQs differing between racial groups,
specifically between whites and blacks. No one seemed to notice that
the issue was essentially irrelevant to the cause of a universalist
eugenics advocated for all groups, without exception.
The second chief factor in the suppression of eugenics was the
launching of the Holocaust memorial movement subsequent to the 1967
Arab/Israeli war. So effective was the campaign that polls show that
many more Americans can identify the Holocaust than Pearl Harbor or
the atomic bombing of Japan.146 Those who are familiar with the term
“eugenics” now associate it with “Holocaust” and “racism.” The
general public is totally unaware that on September 16, 1939, the
leaders of the eugenics movement in the United States and England
explicitly rejected the racist doctrines of the Nazi government (see
Appendix 1), as did many German eugenicists.
An enormous, albeit fully
understandable, confusion has taken place within the Jewish
community, and this confusion is fraught with significance for Jews
today. According to the National Jewish Population Survey, Jews in
America entered into a precipitous decline in numbers in the decade
1990-2000, reflecting a pattern typical of high-IQ groups.147 Half
of Jewish women aged 30-34 have no children, and nearly half of
American Jews are 45 or older.148 This is literally a matter of
survival.
Beginning in the early 1980s, publications on eugenics enjoyed a
considerable upswing, including a huge number of articles in the
published literature and later over the Internet, but even so the
majority of these publications are still either hostile or, at best,
guarded. One relatively recent example is William H. Tucker’s The
Science and Politics of Racial Research (1994). While claiming to
support freedom of scientific inquiry, Tucker dismisses “the trivial
scientific value of IQ heritabilities,” maintains that scientific
rights of research “might be qualified by the rights of others,”
muses whether certain research topics should be pursued at all,
advocates denying government funding to racial research, proposes
applying the Nuremburg Code to researchers, states that the subjects
of psychological research “can be wronged without being harmed” and
that they should be informed of the nature of the research in case
they find the results of the research unflattering. He goes on to
quote the phrases “those miserable 15 IQ points” and “Are you using
such gifts as you possess for or against the people?”149 Tucker can
best be seen as a moderate in the egalitarian camp.
Missa and Susanne’s 1999 book De l’eugénisme d’État à l’eugénisme
privé(From State Eugenics to Private Eugenics) is a collection of
articles authored by a group of Belgian and French scholars and
scientists, some of whom are hostile to eugenics while others are
actually supportive. Even so, eugenics in various places is
described as “utopian” and “unrealistic.” Its goals are
“unachievable,” and it represents “a collection of false ideas”
which are “contradictory” and “disproven by research.” The very
mention of the term can call up “unconditional condemnation for a
shameful practice.”
Other phrases include:
-
“opprobrium,”
-
“the horrors of classical
eugenics,”
-
“the danger of a eugenic
drift,”
-
“American charlatans,”
-
“a dangerous trend,”
-
“the threat of eugenics,”
-
“fear,”
-
“risk,”
-
“menace,”
-
“peril,”
-
“insidious,”
-
“rampant,”
-
“radical,”
-
“immoral,”
-
“elitist,”
-
“the demon of eugenics,”
-
“the temptation of
eugenics,”
-
“the worrisome Trojan horse
of eugenics,”
-
“the specter of eugenics,”
-
“Nazi atrocities,”
-
“gas chambers,”
-
“racism,”
-
“ethnic discrimination,”
-
“the slippery slope of
eugenics,”
-
“detestable reputation,”
-
“barbaric,”
-
“fear,”
-
“warning,”
-
“fatal,”
-
“vigilant resistance to this
tendency,”
-
“genetic discrimination,”
-
“sterilizations and
lobotomies,”
-
“creeping determinism,”
-
“genetic reductionism,”
-
“reduces culture to nature,”
-
“the cult of the body,”
“totalitarian,”
-
“utilitarian drift,”
-
“inhumane,”
-
“a mad idea,”
-
“materialist reductionism,”
-
“biologism,”
-
“geneticism,”
-
“existential or metaphysical
horror,”
-
“vehement, categorical, and
definitive condemnation,”
-
“universal and absolute
condemnation,”
-
“absolutely evil,”
-
“worse than murder,”
-
“Thou shalt not clone!,”
-
“radical evil,”
-
“absolutely bad, absolutely
contrary to good,”
-
“perversion,”
-
“intrinsically evil,”
-
“intrinsically and
necessarily negative with regard to the autonomy of
others,”
-
“instrumentalization and
objectivization of others,”
-
“the genetic impoverishment
of cloning.”150
The campaign has been remarkably
effective in achieving its goals. In 1969, Eugenics Quarterly,
successor to Eugenic News, was renamed the Annals of Human Genetics.
The following year, shortly after the first isolation of a DNA
fragment which constituted a single identifiable gene, the young
scientists involved in the project decided they would not continue
their work on DNA. The reason, they reported, was that such work
would eventually be put to evil uses by the large corporations and
governments that control science.151
Borrowing a phrase from the Soviet
purges, egalitarians denounced eugenics as a “pseudo-science,” so
that the American Eugenics Society was forced to change its name, in
1973, to the Society for the Study of Social Biology. In 1990, the
College Board changed the name of the SAT from Scholastic Aptitude
Test to Scholastic Assessment Test. In 1996, it dropped the words
altogether and declared that the initials no longer stood for
anything whatsoever. The eugenicists themselves all ran for cover,
reclassifying themselves as “population scientists,” “human
geneticists,” “anthropologists,” “demographers,” and “genetic
counselors.”
Return
Possible Abuse of
Genetics
I am myself indifferent honest;
but yet I could accuse me of such things
that it were better my mother had not borne me.
Hamlet
Ultimately, the most serious argument
militating against eugenics is its possible abuse. Unquestionably,
the danger is real. It would not take much work to come up with a
lengthy list of past abuses. The baby can always be drowned in the
bath water. We as a species have much in our past for which we can
now experience only shame.
We are just now deciphering the blueprints according to which we
ourselves were constructed; we could make terrible mistakes. Or we
could lose too much diversity. And as not very distant history
teaches us, eugenics could be misused to justify the elimination of
peoples judged “inferior” or simply hated for whatever reason. For
that matter, who can possibly predict what new evils the fertile
human brain is capable of in some unknown future? It is indeed
frightening. Sophisticated egalitarians, who are not really
egalitarians at all but simply concerned thinkers who fear the man
in the street most of all, are right to experience misgivings.
The potential abuse of genetics is not
limited to distorting the human genome. It is already possible to
begin modifying animals to enhance their intelligence to allow them
to perform tasks currently performed by people, or even to create
animal-human hybrids.152 A ready market will always exist for cheap,
low-skilled workers, so that this is a real danger. Currently people
feel they have the right to regard their fellow travelers on this
planet as objects of consumption, so that there is not even a
discussion of this frightening prospect. But imagine the moral
dilemma that would face us had to deal with animals whose abilities
overlapped the lower range of the human population.
Return
Euthanasia
There is a close relationship between eugenics and the right-to-die
movement. Both are philosophies of life which place value on the
quality of life, not just on life per se. Whereas life expectancy in
England lagged behind fecundity until about 1830,153 the average
life span in modern industrial economies now extends decades beyond
the fertility span.
A simple visit to a nursing home
provides convincing proof that there is a huge population (about to
double, thanks to the baby boomers) of helpless, despairing elderly
who are literally undergoing torture, day after day, month after
month, year after year. Anyone who denies this obvious fact has only
to change places with them –not for years, but for a few hours –to
realize the tragic reality of the situation of many of them.
As we entered the third millennium, the most popular way chosen by
these victims to escape their torture was to blow their brains out
–a path considerably more popular among elderly men (27.7 per
100,000) than women (1.9 per 100,000).154
Return
Religion
Take note, theologians, that in your
desire to make matters of faith out of propositions relating to
the fixity of Sun and Earth you run the risk of eventually
having to condemn as heretics those who would declare the Earth
to stand still and the Sun to change position.
Galileo
“The Dialogue”
There are eugenicists who believe in
God, eugenicists who are agnostic, and eugenicists who are atheists.
Religious belief claims to operate in a different dimension than
does eugenics, although there have always been those who viewed
knowledge as a replacement for religion. The Russian language, for
example, amalgamates the intellectual and spiritual under a single
term: dukhovnyi.
In one crucial aspect, however, the scientific study of human
psychology is antithetical to religion. No matter what their
ideologies or methods, scientists are all in hot pursuit of the holy
grail of causality. This is, after all, what science is all about.
Return
Population Management
There are two basic views of humankind:
a) that we have been
created in the image of God and thus are so perfect
that any improvement is unthinkable
b) that, while our species possesses great positive
features as well as negative, enhancement is essential, and –at the
very least –prevention of genetic decline is an absolute moral
imperative
In many ways eugenics prescribes for humankind the same
goals as for non-human species: a healthy population probably
limited in size so as not to upset nature’s intricate balance of
species and environment. Nevertheless, the specifics of human
population administration are not identical either in goals or
methodology to non-human population management techniques.
A “drain the pond and restock”
methodology is not only morally objectionable with regard to people,
its feasibility is also questionable. Blatantly coercive measures
can even be counter-productive when they engender resistance to
eugenic reform. For eugenics as a movement to escape the temptation
of utopian fantasy, it must be oriented toward the realistically
achievable.
In dealing with non-domesticated animal populations, simple
viability is the goal, health being defined as the capability to
survive and reproduce within an environment. By contrast, human
health criteria also include intelligence and altruism. As for
methodology, only relative minor impingements on the wellbeing of
the current human population can be tolerated, since it they and
only they who can implement eugenic reform. For example, whereas
wildlife managers take for granted that a balance between prey and
predators is a “healthy” thing, no such Spencerian “survival of the
fittest” is appropriate for humans. Despite the grand continuity of
belief retained by modern eugenics from the earlier tradition, on
this point realistic modern eugenics departs radically from that
preached a hundred years ago.
Although individual eugenic efforts are already in full swing, they
are submerged in the great demographic currents, and thus global
eugenic reform is a task for society as a whole. The strength of the
government relative to that of the governed population determines
the limits to governmental intervention (and abuse). The weaker the
government, the smaller the potential for rational population
management. There is also a role to be played by non-governmental
organizations, whose freedom can be less fettered than that of
governments. History is replete with instances of forced population
management, the most infamous method of which is genocide. But other
compulsory methods have also been employed. For example, the
government of Indira Ghandi implemented a policy of compulsory
sterilizations and vasectomies.
And, although India ultimately came to
reject this policy, the nation’s current population is many millions
smaller than it would have been without it. Nevertheless, China’s
semi compulsory one-child policy has proven far more efficacious,
and India with a Total Fertility Rate of 3.1 will soon surpass China
(TFR: 1.7) as the world’s most populous nation. It is estimated that
by 2000 the Chinese population was already a quarter billion less
than it would have been without the one-child policy. On the other
hand, there are situations where emergency methods may well present
the only means of averting major catastrophe. Bangladesh and Haiti
come to mind, but the political will even to raise the topic is
totally absent. Global society is living a fatal lie.
Shifting our focus from quantitative to qualitative questions, the
debate over voluntary versus compulsory methods has thus far
amounted largely to pandering to the whims of current generations.
Indeed, the very phrase “reproductive rights” itself represents a
bias. Do people have the “right”to give birth to babies who in all
probability will grow up feeble minded or who are likely to suffer
from devastating genetic illnesses? On the one side of the equation
may be a single person with a genetic IQ so low that simply coping
in society is well nigh impossible and, on the other, the millions
of disadvantaged offspring whom he and/or she may ultimately
engender over the generations.
Forced sterilizations of persons with
genetically predetermined low IQ and major genetic illnesses should
be reinstituted. This is an unpopular statement, but it has to be
said. Our current refusal to take into account the right of future
generations to health and intelligence is a cowardly betrayal of our
own children. Can it be that we are so selfish as to want to breed a
genetically disadvantaged class of servants to perform our menial
tasks for us?
The grand demographic trend is toward below replacement fertility
rates, and while compulsion has its place, the good news is that
energetic voluntary measures ought usually to be sufficient to
permit women of reproductive age to realize their goal of smaller
families. Clearly, voluntary methods are generally preferable to
compulsory, although the line between voluntarism and coercion can
often be vague.
One voluntary method involves the use of
ultrasound to determine the sex of the fetus. In developing
countries the desire for a male offspring is often strong enough to
induce parents to abort females. Ultimately the number of males in a
population is reproductively insignificant, since only females can
bear children, and a tiny male population is capable of impregnating
a huge female population. Thus, population management has to be
female-oriented.
The Chinese infant sex ratio was normal in the 1960s and 1970s
(roughly 106 boys for every 100 girls), but when the one-child
policy was introduced in the 1980s, the figure became far more
skewed in favor of boys; by 2002 China’s fifth national census
revealed a sex ratio at birth of approximately 116.86 males per 100
females, having increased to 108.5 in 1982 and 110.9 in 1987.
(Admittedly, there is also a question of underreporting of female
births on the part of couples eager to receive permission to have
another child in the hope that it will be a son.) As early as 2000
the number of men in China was already estimated to exceed that of
women by sixty million.
The situation is much the same in India, where the 1991 census
indicated approximately 35-45 million missing women, when ultrasound
was far less available than it is now. In a ten-year study of babies
born in Delhi hospitals in the period 1993-2003, the number of
female births was 542 per 1,000 boys if the first child was a girl.
If the first two children were girls, the ratio was only 219-1,000.
Unfortunately, although the desire for sons is greatest among rural
populations, high-IQ families possess greater access to modern
medicine, including ultrasound, so that this practice appears to
have been dysgenic thus far. But made easily available to low-IQ
families, or if such families were even financially rewarded, it
could become strongly eugenic in nature, simultaneously attacking
both quantitative and qualitative demographic problems. (The
historic link between eugenics and Malthusian thought should be
emphasized.)
A sea change is already underway; by
2005 many clinics offered ultrasound for as little as 500 rupees
($11.50). It goes without saying that this is a tragic turn of
events for those men who do not find a mate for themselves, but it
is a far lesser evil than dysgenic overpopulation. Moreover,
heightened competition for females would disproportionately reward
high-IQ males.
(For this same reason polygamy should be universally
decriminalized. The legal enforcement of monogamy is a dysgenic
intrusion into personal freedom. No scientific breeder would even
consider it.)
Another voluntary method is a vigorous promotion of contraceptive
methods among low-IQ families. While education is not about to
cancel out the sex drive of young people, it can go a long way
toward reducing the birth rate. Reversible sterilization should be
actively promoted.
The current debate between “pro-choice” and “pro-life” fails utterly
to take into account the consequences of abortion for genetic
selection. Abortion should be actively promoted, since it often
serves as the last and even only resort for many low-IQ mothers who
fail to practice contraception. Welfare policies need to be
radically reexamined. Rather than simply pay low-IQ women more for
each child, financial support should be made dependent on consent to
undergo sterilization. Society should put more emphasis on greater
tax credits for families with children, nurseries, day-care centers,
etc.
This would promote fertility among
high-IQ women, who otherwise are tempted either not to have children
at all, or to have too few, sacrificing their unborn children before
the altar of career advancement. The goals of the feminist movement
are in and of themselves legitimate and fair, but wed to the
anti-scientific worldview of radical egalitarianism, they will
devastate our species.
Eugenic family planning services are the greatest gift that the
advanced countries can offer the Third World. In a global society,
parochial fixation on any one country is a pathology that human
society can ill afford. What is needed is tough love. Such a policy
would promote the interests of any ethnic group, all of which suffer
when their least intelligent members serve as the breeding pool
while the most intelligent encounter strong disincentives to
fertility.
In different countries a different mix of governmental and
non-governmental activism is appropriate. Useful measures would
include paying low-IQ women to accept embryo transfer. Sperm banks
need to be encouraged to attach the greatest importance to
intelligence, and the promotion of these institutions should be
covered out of tax monies. And the technology should be developed to
create an artificial womb or, alternatively, make inter-species
embryo transplants a reality, rapidly increasing the number of
high-IQ individuals. Religious belief will always be with us, and
eugenics must not be presented as scientific in an anti-religious
sense.
At the same time there is a huge
potential for excess if eugenics were to become a core belief of the
masses. Genetic research needs to be promoted without regard to
cost. Who can say what enormous potential awaits us in the future as
a result of germ-line intervention? On the immigration front, the
importation of low-IQ groups to perform unskilled labor at low wages
must be recognized as a threat to the host population’s long-term
viability. Panmixia also represents a loss in genetic diversity. All
populations represent unique entities, and the loss of such
uniqueness is everyone’s loss. Nevertheless, given the realities of
improved transportation and communication, inbreeding can only
increase in the future.
Return
Feasibility
Nature has packed away this long
brain
Like a sword into scabbard.
She has forgotten those whose grave is green, Whose breath is
red, whose laugh is supple.
Osip Mandelstam
“Lamarck”
When an ideal is recognized as
unachievable, it is dismissed as “utopian.” If real sacrifice is
required on the part of the currently living, whose altruism extends
downward for only a generation or two and who for the most part are
indifferent to culture and civilization, is eugenics not simply a
fantasy?
To evaluate the feasibility of reestablishing the eugenics movement
as a viable social force, we must first take a hard look at
political systems and move beyond the populist jingoism which is as
eternal as it is ubiquitous. In a dictatorship, power is patently
invested in one person, whereas in “democracies” the pyramidal power
structure is more opaque:
Level A: lobbies
and (largely anonymous) oligarchs. Level B: politicians.
Level C: prominent government staffers and
media. Level D: the general population.
What is crucial in this scheme of things
is that the relationship of Levels B and C to Level A is, to a
significant degree, that of employee to employer. To be elected,
politicians need money for polling and advertising/propaganda, while
the media (also owned by Level A) entertain the general population
with competitions in which the differences between the competitors
is minimal. Once “elected,” politicians then implement the will of
those who provided the financing, while losing politicians are
“parked” in profitable ceremonial positions to ready themselves for
the next round. To be sure, there are sophisticates within the
general population who are not duped as to the nature of the system,
but they can be intimidated, co-opted, or even permitted to voice
discontent. Since they pose no threat to the system, their protests
are used as a demonstration of “freedom of speech.” The bottom line
is that all human social structures are oligarchic in nature, and
the implementation of a viable eugenics policy is dependent on a
relatively tiny elite.
Eugenics is not an either/or proposition. Many of the decisions
being taken on a governmental level are already fraught with genetic
consequences – family planning programs, legalized and subsidized
abortions, immigration criteria, tax credits for having children,
mandated paid parental leave, genetic research, cloning, fertility
assistance, and so on. Eugenicists argue that it is only reasonable
that the decision makers take into account the eugenic or dysgenic
consequences of governmental actions.
The world is divided into independent nations. Given the necessary
funding, it would be possible in at least some of them to set up
massive positive-eugenic breeding programs which would not
necessarily depend on human birth mothers. The resistance to such
changes is understandably intense, considering that even artificial
insemination continues to be resisted in some quarters.
One obvious factor that will promote the eugenic agenda is the
undeniable desire of parents to have healthy, intelligent children.
Genetic screening of embryos will obviously encompass a greater and
greater range of detectable traits, and thus the bar will be raised
from simply eliminating disastrous diseases to attempting to produce
children who enjoy genetic advantages that are currently available
to a smaller percentage of the population. Germ-line therapy, unlike
both the traditional methods of positive and negative eugenics, will
make it possible for people to have their own children –but children
who will be more healthy and intelligent than they would have been
without genetic intervention. This method will entirely bypass the
intergenerational conflict of interests which works to the
disadvantage of the helpless unborn. As discussed above, public
opinion is extremely malleable.
Advertising and political propaganda come down to cost. But if any
individual country were to aggressively pursue a national eugenics
policy while being militarily weak, of if any ethnic group were to
follow such a course of action, nonparticipating countries/groups
would sense a competitive threat to their offspring and would be
sorely tempted to launch a preemptive strike so as to avoid the
necessity of introducing a eugenics policy themselves.
Return
Radical
Intervention
We know what we are, but not what we
may be.
Hamlet
While we are still at an extremely early
stage in our understanding of human genetics, it is entirely
foreseeable that future knowledge will permit us to go beyond simple
genetic tinkering to replace this or that disease-engendering gene
or enhance some desirable ability or personality trait. We will be
able to go much further and alter the genetic constitution in the
most radical fashion. As pointed out by the bioethicist and
theologian Joseph Fletcher as early as 1973, the creation of persons
whose genome is partly borrowed from other species is entirely
possible.155
Recent writing now discusses the
“fungibility” of DNA, the consequent malleability of life, the fact
that human nature is not fixed, the possibility that at some future
point different groups of human beings may follow divergent paths of
development through the use of genetic technology –perhaps as
different from one another as men and women are now, the collapse of
interspecies barriers, the possibility of not simply discovering
genes but creating them. Should we really attempt to preserve human
nature or should we attempt to change it?156 John H. Campbell, a
biologist at the University of California, is among those who
advocate radical interventionism.
He writes that
Geneticists are laying open our heredity like the circuit board of a
radio…. We shall be able to redesign our biological selves at will….
In point of fact, it is hard to imagine how a system of inheritance
could be more ideal for engineering than ours is.157 Reasoning that
the majority of humankind will not voluntarily accept qualitative
population-management policies, Campbell points out that any attempt
to raise the IQ of the whole human race would be tediously slow. He
further points out that the general thrust of early eugenics was not
so much species improvement as the prevention of decline.
Campbell’s eugenics, therefore,
advocates the abandonment of Homo sapiens as a “relic” or “living
fossil” and the application of genetic technologies to intrude upon
the genome, probably writing novel genes from scratch using a DNA
synthesizer. Such eugenics would be practiced by elite groups, whose
achievements would so quickly and radically outdistance the usual
tempo of evolution that within ten generation the new groups will
have advanced beyond our current form to the same degree that we
transcend apes.
Campbell anticipates the creation of new
species according to the punctuated equilibrium scenario discussed
earlier. Practitioners of the new eugenics would view themselves as
intermediaries of evolution rather than as finished products. Freed
from the “drag” of an outdated species that is already in decline,
they could evolve in intelligence in a geometrical increase
–forever. Our current intellect, Campbell projects, is probably
unable even to comprehend the mental attributes that descendants
will struggle to conceive. He then goes on to advocate an old idea
–eugenic religions. Not accidentally, one of the sites circulating
Campbell’s article is that of “Prometheism.” Lastly, he points out
that some appropriate genetic technologies are already available:
Private autoevolution is not a
possibility for a distant future nor is it a science fiction. It
is with us now, albeit at an early enough phase to have escaped
most people’s attention…. The most significant legacy of our age
will not be nuclear power, computers, political achievements or
a static ethics for a “sustainable” society. It will be the
closure of our rational intellect around our evolution. The
statues of the 21st century will celebrate the fathers of Homo
autocatalyticus who brought evolution under its own reason. The
world waits to see whose faces will adorn them. 158
Campbell’s projection of rapid,
small-group-directed evolution is at once heartening and depressing.
Greater, even open-ended, intelligence is awesome to contemplate. On
the other hand, how sad we must be for those “living fossils” who
constitute the mass of humanity –humanity, at least, as we know it
today.
The reader will recall that eugenics does not limit itself to the
present population but defines society as the entire human community
over time; the movement perceives itself as the fourth leg of the
table upon which that community rests. (The three other legs are a
supply of natural resources; a clean, biodiverse environment; and a
human population no larger than the planet can comfortably sustain
on an indefinite basis.) This means that we are dealing with what
eugenicists consider to be non-negotiable issues. Such conditions
are viewed as either essential to survival or intrinsically linked
to the very meaning of existence. All other considerations
–political parties, for example, or even the welfare of today’s
population –are perceived as flowing from and subordinate to these
two.
What this means is that if the eugenics platform is to have any
chance of success it will have to adopt a posture of
non-partisanship and link itself to neither the political right nor
the left. At the same time, for strategic considerations, the
movement cannot afford embroilment in inter-group conflict or even
inter-group comparisons. While these areas may constitute legitimate
concerns for the political scientist, the sociologist, or the human
biologist, history has demonstrated that their pursuit within the
eugenic agenda can be counterproductive and even disastrous.
Scholars and scientists wishing to promote the eugenics agenda will
have to search for commonalities with other thinkers rather than
enter into conflict with them. Ideological separation will require a
self-discipline that no one will readily embrace. To be honest, some
of these topics can be of eugenic significance. At the very least,
they can intersect with eugenic considerations. Presently, such
self-control is not even being attempted. A post-human or even a
non-human evolutionary path to intelligence –as opposed to a general
uplifting of the whole population –therefore appears more and more
likely.
Legal barriers are already being erected
in a frantic attempt to prevent a resurgence of eugenics, but to
believe that such measures can be completely effective is a hopeless
fantasy. Campbell’s logic is inescapable. The rejection of
traditional within-species eugenics –despite all the posturing of
society –will inevitably lead to the scenario he describes. The
invention of writing created a global human mind, in which knowledge
is passed on and accumulated over generations. In the process,
individual people specialize in specific fields, and no one today
would be tempted to speak of “universal geniuses.” There is simply
too much to know. While the human brain has been millions of years
in the making, computers, which have been in development really for
only about a century, are already beating the best human players at
chess. “Hal” may not yet have been born but he is even now kicking
in his binary womb.
Carbon-based technology has its limitations. The individual human
brain is limited by its size, by the amount of time available for
learning, and by the speed at which it can process information. A
computer can be created of any size with limitless memory and
limitless programming. As for speed, current technology is already
processing information in picoseconds (trillionths of a second),
whereas the human brain is capable of mere microseconds.159 The
human mind is itself a machine, and its quirks, self-consciousness,
and adaptability will all eventually be explained, even though we
are only beginning to unlock its secrets. Currently a noisy debate
is ongoing as to whether computer brain power can surpass human, but
really it is a question of when rather than whether. The two
societies projected by H.G. Wells in The Time Machine, one producing
material goods and the other, childlike, consuming them, is probably
going to arrive sooner than we think and the childlike creatures
will be us.
This soon-to-be reality relegates to eugenics a far more modest role
than would otherwise be imaginable. Any effort to improve the human
brain is targeted at an instrument which is inherently limited in
its capacity. The machine brain, on the other hand, will be
something like God. Allotted only a thousand months or so of
existence, we individuals are as ephemeral as chaff in the wind, but
the fate of thought, of culture, of life itself has been thrust upon
us, and we can either fritter away the patrimony of millions of
generations in the gratification of individualistic and tribal
instincts or we can stride forward to fulfill our fate, shouldering
our responsibilities to a future world and linking hands in the
great chain of generations.
Conclusion
A father’s responsibility
Deuteronomy 6:1-9
As the collective human brain ponders
both its own origins and its future, the eugenics platform reemerges
as timeless, for the issues it deals with are independent of both
historical advocacy and repudiation by individuals.
The left-right political continuum has been set according to issues
of importance to currently living constituencies, whose interests
are largely peripheral and even instrumental to the eugenics
platform, where neither the expanded (longitudinal) definition of
humankind nor the teleology of existence fit into the accepted
spectrum.
The conflict of interests between us and future generations
represents a moral confrontation, but politics can best be
summarized as the formation of alliances based on mutual advantage.
Which are the constituencies that will agree to partner with future
generations when no quid pro quo is possible? Do such constituencies
even exist?
What You Can
Do For Future Generations
1. Tell your friends about
this book and forward to them the website at which the book can
be downloaded free of charge:
www.whatwemaybe.org
2. If you are a native speaker of a language other than
English and wish to volunteer to translate this book into your
native tongue, please contact Dr. Glad at:
JohnPGlad@Yahoo.com
3. If you are a teacher dealing with any of the following
areas, assign the book to your students: academic freedom,
anthropology, bioethics, biology, biopolitics, cloning, crime,
demographics, ecology, egalitarianism, environmentalism, ethics,
eugenics, euthanasia, evolution, fertility, futurology,
generational equity, genetics, history, the holocaust, human
rights, migration/emigration,/immigration), philosophy,
political science, population studies, religion, sociobiology,
sociology, testing, welfare.
Return
|