Eugenics

One of the things I want to explore on my blog, whether I ever get a lot of traffic or not is controversial issues that I think need to be explored. By blogging about it even just for myself or one or two others it provides an impetus for me to do the research that will help me learn.

Eugenics is one of these subjects, I'm not really sure why it seems so forbidden to discuss the idea that one would want to improve the gene pool, whether it is with sheep or cows or people I think there is some logic behind the idea.

I am not talking about Hitleresque purges or anything, I am talking about some sensible rational planning and thought going into the process. Obviously it would be easy to go completely ape shit about it and just kill off any child that isn't perfect. I think it is fairly safe to say no rational sane person would try to justify such a barbarism.

What made me want to find out more about this subject (and I am venturing far afield here) is a state program to assist mentally challenged people to not only have sex, but to become parents. We are talking about a program that is encouraging persons who cannot even function on their own to produce even more people who would be completely dependant on the state for survival.

I am not a cruel or hard hearted person but I am also not a moron. If one cannot even take care of and provide for one self, how in the world is it logical to to produce yet even more responsibility that one cannot meet? I guess by logical extension my rational should extend to persons who are wholly dependent on welfare. would it not be wise in these days of modern science to require that persons who are virtual wards of the state to be under some mandate of birth control? something while not permanent, that could be reversed but something that does not rely on personal responsibility and diligence to be in effect. I may be diverging from Eugenics here but this is part of the discussion. It is all about keeping the quality of life higher for everyone by preventing more of a burden on one than one can handle, and it would after all raise the standard of living to those children who are born, as the parents would at least not be a drain on society as a whole....yeah yeah yeah I know it sounds very Hitler like to me too.

Anyway on to more of the typical Eugenics fare. Modern Science is wonderful it makes life easier and safer for us all, but at what point do you really start degrading the gene pool. Take eyesight for example, I was born with really bad eyes, but thanks to glasses and much later LASIC surgery I see as well as anyone. However by being protected by all our modern safety and medical advances and having my eyes corrected, my defective gene's coupled with my ex-wifes similar defects are not doing my kids any good, People like me, left handed very myopic persons tended to die from accidents a lot earlier than they do now, now we live longer and are more likely to reproduce and to pass on our defective genes. So, just where does the line between good idea and very bad for the species lie? My eyesight and left handedness are minor corrections compared to some. There are serious malfunctions that nature would eventually weed out if man did not interfere. Where, as a society does our responsibility end? I don't really know, which is why I'm posting this long long diatribe.

The idea of Eugenics is not new, it has been around for as long as man has been at least an agricultural being. Selectively planting the strongest of our crops. The field and concept of eugenics was really kicked off by Francis Galton in 1883 who was inspired by the works of Charles Darwin. This long before Hitler and the Nazi's brought about the horror of the concentration camps. Such notable intellects as H.G. Wells, Emile Zola, George Bernard Shaw, John Maynard Keynes, William Kellog and Margaret Sanger, were supporters of the practice of eugenics. Many if not most Colleges and Universities taught that eugenics made sense and was desirable. The Carneggie Institution, The Kellog Foundation, Harriman Family funded the ideas. The whole subject did not fall into disrepute until the 1930's when it was used to support the political and racial agenda of Nazi Germany. Seeing the horror and the carnage that Hitler and the Nazi's perpetrated it makes sense that the idea be reigned in and kept in check, but was it really the best idea to completely obliterate the subject as a topic that could at least be discussed?

At this point in time I see a decided move by politicians of all stripe attempting to make "We the People" more dependent on them and less self sufficient, less able to do for our selves. Is this in fact a governmental system bent on using the concept of eugenics against it's populace? Is the process of natural selection being blocked by our civilization and a group of leaders trying to breed a better class of domestic sheeple?

I don't know the answers, but I have some sneaking suspicions. I have gut feelings that tell me that it is right to help people who need help, but that it is wrong to let them bring new life into the world if they are unable to care for themselves. I feel it is in our best interest to help those with some forms of physical and/or mental handicaps, but is there a point beyond which it is counterproductive?

Anyone wishing to weigh in on these weighty subjects please feel free. Just bear in mind, that I am not advocating anything here, I am just trying to put one of those "Taboo" subjects out in the light of reasoned discourse.