Eugenics

Eugenics has probably been practised since man became aware of the benefits of interbreeding certain animals to improve the quality of the stock. Today the topic is hotly debated amongst various members of the world community ranging from politically and religiously motivated people, to the scientific community and even 'Joe Public'.

The term was first used by Francis Galton in 1883. He believed that a society that allowed weak and feeble minded people to reproduce was opposing natural selection, the survival of the fittest. His idea was to speed improvement of the race by selective breeding to develop the positive traits and dispose of the negative. Thus would a physically and mentally more able being arise. Way before that Plato advocated that humans be bred like dogs to develop superior qualities.

This policy of encouraging men and women possessing ‘desirable’ qualities to marry and produce large amounts of offspring has been embraced by a number of different countries and societies at different times.

By 1931 twenty seven of the American states followed Galtons ideals and had sterilisation laws in place in order to prevent undesirables from reproducing. Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Switzerland and Germany followed suit before 1935. Sweden continued a policy of enforced separation or sterilisation for those of mixed race, low intelligence or with physical defects in order to prevent such qualities from being passed on right up until 1976.
The most often referred to is the regime set in place by the Nazis earlier this century. Their A bunch of dodgy looking women

domestic policies followed the basic example set out above to a large extent. Marriage policies were set in place. This involved permits to ensure marriages only occurred between suitable candidates from suitable 'Nordic' stock. Undesirable elements were separated from the community or sterilized. These elements consisted of persons with:- hereditary feeble mindedness, schizophrenia, epilepsy, manic depressive psychosis, serious physical deformities, hereditary deafness, hereditary alcoholism, hereditary blindness or Huntingtons chorea. Sterilisation of habitual sex offenders also took place. The aim of these laws was to prevent the suffering of the current and future populations and the burdening of the state with the care of such individuals. This system was actually praised for its efficiency and effectiveness by an American publication 'Birth Control Review'. Far from being reviled the world over, some of these policies were widely practised. Pioneered by the US, they spread across South America, Europe, Scandinavia and Canada. Its popularity then waned in the west due to its association with the Nazis and the events of the 2nd world war, namely the slaughter of the Jews and the unfit (homosexuals, the deaf/dumb/blind etc).

China currently actively supports eugenics. They have a 'one child per family' law in place. As boys are more highly prized than girls in Chinese society ultrasound is used to detect the sex of the child in the womb. Families feel that it is a waste of their 'quota' if the child is female thus leading to the demise of the female foetus. Therefore the birth rate of boys is higher than that of girls. This is a social phenomena rather than a state imposed one. In order to discourage this the state allows couples whose first child is a girl to have a second. The practice of aborting the girls is discouraged otherwise large numbers of men will be unable to marry.

The marriage of persons who may pass on congenital defects to their children is disallowed by the state. Sterilisation laws are vigorously enforced to the point of executing people who accept bribes not to perform them. New births of 'inferior quality' are not desired. Abortion and sterilization is advised for pregnant women who have certain infectious diseases or abnormal unborn children. The State wants to 'heighten the standards of the population'.

The word 'Eugenics' tends to bring up images of the holocaust and Nazi rule when it is mentioned. There is however a large movement in favour of pursuing this approach again in the future. Some believe that our species is actually becoming less intelligent and less able with every generation, a situation which must be reversed if our species is to thrive. Others believe it is the will of God that these policies are pursued. Others still would have you flogged for even considering such an evil, extremist ideal.

Human rights must be the starting point of any argument involving this subject. Many of the policies described above were supposedly voluntary, or carried out with the consent of the individuals concerned. How real or realistic this is I am uncertain. It seems strange that anyone would agree to sterilisation unless they were not (or were no longer) interested in having a family. Compulsion seems sure to follow. This was the case in Germany where a Doctor could force sterilisation, aided by the police if necessary. This begs the questions 'Who decides who is unfit?' 'What right does this person (or State) have to judge the fitness of the other?' It is known that some manic depressives are capable of brilliance, achieving world recognition for their work. How does one determine the worth of this? Is it not a valuable commodity?

Whilst I agree that the human race must evolve and improve it cannot be forced along by legislation. Like minded groups of people can progress the race between them without forcing their views or choices on others. It is an individuals decision, not a governments.

Without doubt any compulsory euthanasia as part of a eugenics policy is immoral and cannot be tolerated. The individual (or family of an incapacitated individual, say in the case of brain death) should have choice of this option if desired.

Selective abortion is also practised widely. This is a source of endless bitter arguments and violence between apposing groups. If an unborn child is diagnosed as genetically abnormal or otherwise 'flawed' it may be aborted by the choice of the mother. I seriously doubt if the health of the species plays a role in the decision making process of the poor traumatised parents involved. It remains their choice (in this country at least) and correctly so.

It only remains to say that even 'unfit' or 'racially undesirable' people are still capable of achieving a high quality of life and happiness. They also contribute to society and make the world a richer place to occupy. It is possible they would be pressed to survive if we were transported back to the caves or other times gone by but this is the now, and there is room for all. To suggest that it would be better if these people had not been born at all is, at the very least, insulting.

In the future there will be only one race of humans. Everyone will be the same colour, thus removing a source of conflict. Any other source of racial tension will be lost in the process, for example the studies that find different nationalities have different IQs have caused widespread condemnation and cries of 'nazi'. It is very easy to upset peoples sensibilities in the pursuit of science. Of course people will still have different IQs and the world will still need a variety of tasks to be carried out. People can do what they are able to or what they are good at!
One persons morals are not anothers. My personal belief is that eugenics may be practised if required, but it should be practised for the good of the entire species, not for any specific nationality. Individuals who are unfortunate enough not to be perfect in body and mind should not need to fear the consequences of the pro-eugenics camps actions. Perhaps the increased 'fitness' of their offspring may help them in the end!

Tutors comments:-

You can use books too....
You need to draw a clearer destinction between positive and negative eugenics, but a well written, interesting essay.
You need to use apostrophes when appropriate