A new eugenics? [Fair Use: Educational and Research Purposes Only]

Link

~snip~ This examination of the history of eugenics and genetics and the current practice of genetic counselling shows that the claim that eugenics is simply a bogeyman from the past, which we can easily avoid, is at best naive, and at worst disingenuous. Geneticists need to learn something of the real history of genetics and eugenics and examine their actions and motives a little more carefully. Eugenics is certainly alive, but what is the chance that it will become a real threat in the future? We cannot answer this question in the abstract, but only by looking at the economic and social contexts within which overt eugenics policies become attractive. The biologist and historian, Garland Allen, has shown how the eugenics movement became popular in the US in response to fear of chaos caused by social and economic changes4. In the late 19th century, the US was undergoing major industrial expansion and restructuring of its economy, together with an influx of refugees from Europe. These conditions created major social unrest, including strikes, which often led to violence. Similar factors were also at work in Germany. The response was calls for more planning and regulation of the economy, and of society. Like Taylorism, eugenics was appealing as a modern, progressive and purportedly scientifically-based system for creating more order in society. In the 1990s, we may be experiencing something similar. Economic globalisation is eroding people's standard of living and job security, leading to a `New World Disorder', in which resource shortages and environmental crisis, as well as the emergence of new diseases, is leading to widespread fear and uncertainty. A crucial similarity with the early part of the century is a perceived shortage of resources for health and welfare: the widespread current discussion of healthcare rationing may fuel pressures to introduce genetic screening programmes as cost-saving public health measures. Of course the 1990s are not the 1920s and 30s, and we have seen what eugenics and fascism can do. If there is to be a new popular eugenics in industrialised countries, it will have to come in disguise. On the other hand, the scientific basis of eugenics is a lot more plausible now. The success of genetics is also fuelling popular genetic determinist attitudes about personality and behaviour that are very similar to those common in the first part of this century. At least initially, a new eugenics will most likely be a laissez faire eugenics. The dominant concept now is consumer choice in reproduction, an idea unheard of in the 1930s. Although we are unlikely to see a new generation of eugenic activists publicly arguing for such policies, the outcome will tend to be the same. It is rather pointless to debate definitions and whether or not we call this eugenics. The point is that the underlying drive towards control of reproductive mess is still very much alive, and scientific and social conditions are right for this drive to be expressed. The danger we will need to guard against is the development of a kind of eugenic common sense, that it is irresponsible to refuse to undergo tests, and that every child has the `right' to a healthy genetic endowment. It may soon become common sense that sex is for fun, but having a baby is a serious matter, not to be left to chance. We will need to be vigilant for eugenics disguised as public health measures. It is vital that we have an informed public debate about eugenics and where we are going with the new genetics. The debate must move beyond sensationalism and self-defensive posturing by geneticists. It is equally vital that the debate begins now, while there is still time to act.

-- Jack Marshall (marshall2@iname.com), February 27, 2000

Answers

Jack -- I once knew a family where the mother and father were both blinded by a genetic eye disease. They produced 8-10 children, all of whom went blind early in life before they graduated high school. They knew the first few kids had the genetic illness before they had the last children, but they kept having kids anyway. They were on full welfare support, and everything they needed to live was supplied by the government and paid for by taxpayers.

On the surface it seems easy to say that these people shouldn't have had children. On the other hand, after they had children it would be murder to reduce their population of genetically blind children. I still wonder if the children passed the blindness on to their children and if they were continuing to live and breed on welfare. I'm not thrilled about supporting yet another generation of them.

Eugenics will never be an easy subject. While total blindness as a genetic disease is a clear case for genetic considerations before breeding, consider how many people are myopic, or a bit less blind. Do they have a right to breed?

Stay tuned...

-- helen (sstaten@fullnet.net), February 27, 2000.

I can see it now. There will be a sterilization chemical put in the drinking water. You will have to pass a genetic and economic screening to get the antidote and reproduce. the political football will be deciding which genes are important.

-- John (littmannj@aol.com), February 27, 2000.

I think that it is morally wrong to have 10 kids and make someone else pay for it. It has the same logic as if I went to buy a luxurious fur coat, and then sent the bill to all my neighbors on my street.

Of course farm families who lived rural and could and did grow their own food are another matter. They supported themselves, fed themselves and I have no problems with people like that having 10 kids.

-- (formerly@nowhere.zzz), February 28, 2000.

Helen, excuse me, but "breed""? We are not talking animals here. We are discussing humans, who eventually had to live with a disability. How do you know they didn't contribute something positive to those folks that they touched? A disability does not make a person a non- contributing member to society. More facts please!

-- Aunt Bee (AuntBee@Mayberry.com), February 28, 2000.

Generally speaking, people are opposed to genetic manipulation right up until they need it for themselves or their loved ones...

If you were getting Alzheimer's and science could fix the genetic flaw causing your deterioration, and you had a choice of what to do...now THAT would test your moral mettle.

-- Imso (lame@prepped.com), February 28, 2000.

"Helen, excuse me, but "breed""? We are not talking animals here. We are discussing humans, who eventually had to live with a disability. How do you know they didn't contribute something positive to those folks that they touched? A disability does not make a person a non- contributing member to society. More facts please! " -- Aunt Bee

Aunt Bee -- yes, the word "breed" might be offensive, but that is what humans do to make more humans. I never advocated the murder of these blind people, I just question whether they have the right to inflict me with the TOTAL cost of their lives and the lives of their offspring. While many blind people are fully self-supporting, for some reason this family was not. Their oldest children as adults continued the pattern of living totally on public assistance. Sorry, I don't want to pay for another generation of this family.

Eugenics is about money. How much money is the life of a person worth? A gene therapy cure for a disease still opens the question of who is worthy of receiving that treatment. Is a young violent offender less worthy than an elderly nursing home patient?

Am *I* worthy of medical treatment? Should *I* have been allowed to breed children who may carry myopia? What about other possible genetic flaws we don't know about yet? It's a question for everyone.

Can of worms here...

-- helen (sstaten@fullnet.net), February 28, 2000.

Helen,

This is yet another problem with "public assistance" (government's corrupt and inefficient redistribution of our hard-earned wealth). Once we are all tied to this system, the government makes a case for violating any and all of our rights in the name of cost-effectiveness.

Everyone has the right to breed as much as they like. Everyone should also have the right to starve. Successfully taking away the latter, by confiscation of the wealth of productive citizens at gunpoint and redistributing it to the nonproductive, does not obviate the former right, to reproduce freely. Or any other right.

This country was on the principle of keeping government (and the shadowy financial powers that manipulate it) strictly limited in their control over the lives of individuals. We have abandoned this principle wholesale, and we will soon pay for that abandonment with unimaginable suffering.

-- Bruno (Bruno@nola.iao), February 28, 2000.

The last time I checked, we *all* still belonged to the animal family mammalia. Any class of of warm-blooded higher vertebrates that nourish their young with milk secreted by mammary glands, which includes humans. Of course we humans don't like being reminded or our connection to animals.

But there are many differences. The nonhuman animals never make war against each other. They never attack humans or other animals unless their young, or territory is in jeopardy, but never for a pair of Nikes or just to serial kill or thrill kill.

Helen I agree with you. I think these people were wrong. Frankly I think people should care so much for their children that they hold off having them until they can provide them with love, a decent home, and education.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), February 28, 2000.

Ms Gilda,

I hope you come back to this thread 'cuz you ain't watchin' enough nature TV if you don't think animals are unkind to each other or only kill for food.

-- I'mSo (lame@prepped.com), February 28, 2000.

Yes, I know that animals sometimes kill others for reasons other than I stated. Sometimes it's for no other reason than rutting season, or because a baby may be unable to survive so the mother kills it, or it protrays weakness.

I am hardly so naive as to think animals conduct their entire lives along altruistic lines. Having said that, I would add that animals can't even begin to approach the scope, refinement and cunning of the violence practiced by "civilized" human beings to their own kind.

I've raised hundreds of animals, worked with animals in shelters and have done animal rehab. Even the most domesticated animals have a pecking order that isn't always kind. But wars, and deliberate, prolonged torture are solely the province of human beings.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), February 29, 2000.

-- Ivan (workin@ntherailroadallthelivelong.day), February 29, 2000.