Eugenics aims to use science to improve the human race across generations by changing the composition of human populations – this is achieved by promoting the reproduction of certain kinds or types of people over others. This favorable treatment can take the form of facilitating the reproduction of certain ones – those with desirable characteristics – or it can take the form of inhibiting the reproduction of others – those with undesirable characteristics. The first of these is positive eugenics – the second is negative eugenics…
Historically, positive eugenic measures included promoting the idea that healthy, high-performing individuals should have children or larger families—the establishment of institutions and policies that encourage marriage and family life for these individuals—and the creation of sperm banks where eugenically desirable traits, such as intelligence, are either criteria for donors or are present in the donor, allowing users to take them into account in their choices.
It is worth keeping in mind that positive and negative eugenics often align. In cases where a eugenic policy imposes a strict requirement or restriction, this follows logically: the requirement for someone to have a specific trait in order to reproduce, for example, means that only those who possess this trait will reproduce, and no one without this trait can reproduce. Artificial or natural selection for a trait in a given population is also selection against the absence of that trait in the population. For example, selecting for the existence of genetic material for producing blue eyes also selects against the existence of non-blue eyes (e.g., brown or green eyes).
The discussion about eugenics is supposedly over decades ago. The above excerpt comes from a Canadian portal titled The Eugenics Archive – and subtitled the ominous What sorts of people should there be? – and describes exactly this kind of classical eugenics that flourished in late 19th and early 20th century Europe and North America and is now considered banal. Despite the restrained and supposedly neutral formulations, the connection to theories of “superiority” and racist measures against the “weaker” is easy, almost automatic, since this is the general perception: eugenics is fascism and fascism was defeated 70 years ago.
The problem is that capitalism never renounced the ideal of natural superiority and the distinctions deriving from it. However, because capitalist elites could not found their superiority on God or blood, they are forced to resort to its two seductive handmaidens, science and technology, to construct it; and this when they do not resolve the issue of “superiority” and “inferiority” through endless slaughter. Indeed, the nobility was always “documented” and grounded in “scientific analysis.” In reality, it was not this that was defeated but its advocates. Besides, we are now deep into the 21st century; how much longer must charismatic and wannabe superhumans endure the leveling of “all people are born with the same inherent worth”?
The fourth industrial revolution has come to resolve this pending issue as well: if we are indeed all members of the same species, if we equally belong to the same group of fauna on this cosmic rock. The answer is already discernible, applauded by many now, vindicating the eugenicists and their mad visions. Only now it’s not called “eugenic,” but rather transhumanism, post-humanism, human-extended, or humanity-plus. Impressive terminology, but ultimately it’s exactly the same garbage, albeit with plenty of philology about the “common good,” “therapies for incurable diseases,” and the “future of humanity.” If Dr. Mengele had a good PR company in his service to promote him, he would adopt this terminology.
The following excerpt is from Human plus (human, very human…) of the fourth issue of Cyborg. The reasoning does not belong to an apologist of the aristocracy, but to a guru of technofetishism. It triumphantly proclaims the coming technological kingdom, but his words are difficult to conceal the post-modern gray hood:
Transhumanism, as it is known, is the process of improving ourselves with high technology; the state where technology is not simply an extension of ourselves – as a smartphone perhaps is – but part of ourselves.
In a more concise way, futurists refer to transhumanism as H+ or humanity plus. Just two symbols are enough to indicate that technology can make us better than we are…The ideas of transhumanism and posthumanism are closely intertwined. The posthuman condition is the destination: humans transform their nature through various means – technological, spiritual, genetic. The posthuman condition has much in common with the idea of the Ubermensch, a philosophical concept of Nietzsche, which can be traced in many ways: racially by the Nazis, eugenically in much of the related philosophy, and through technology…
There are people who already live as transhumans today, and the quality of their life (and in some cases their very life) can be attributed to posthuman technological capabilities…
After 40 years of academic fervor and debates regarding the concept of posthumanism, we need not wait any longer. We see it happening.
- Question: Some make comparisons between transhumanism and eugenics: how do you feel about this comparison? Is it valid? Is there a beneficial possibility for “positive eugenics” in today’s world?
- Answer: There is no comparison between transhumanism and the coercive management of human beings. By its very nature and at the core of its ideology, transhumanism values human rights. Human rights include individual freedom and the right to enhancement, as well as the right against forced enhancement. Transhumanism promotes human enhancement for good purposes, based on the freedom of choice.
I think the word eugenic has a very bad taste in humanity’s mouth, which is why we should try to make it a positive concept. Historically, the horrific crimes against the human species committed by criminals’ hands are condemnable. These crimes were committed by criminals: from clitoridectomy to the violent capture of other people, against their psychology and physiology. Someone might call these eugenic, but in reality, they are not. It is a term that has been associated with the Germans under Hitler’s influence…
- Question: What do you think about using genetic editing to make improvements to the human condition? I’m not asking about preventing diseases, but rather about creating “better” traits.
- Answer: Excellent idea. Don’t we constantly try to improve ourselves through education and exercise? So is this an attempt to influence gene expression? It would be great if we could do it directly. You add a gene and boom! You acquire an upgraded tendency for learning. I would really like something like that.
- Question: Is there a difference between transhumanism and genetic recombination in relation to its eugenic past;
- Answer: I don’t think I understand what you mean by “his noble past.” If this has anything to do with the extermination of people, then transhumanism is completely opposed to it. If we’re talking about improving the condition of those who are alive today, yes, that is transhumanism. What we’re saying is: “Let’s find more effective ways to make improvements.”
- Question: Should we perhaps talk about the benefits and risks of a future eugenics based on genetic recombination?
- Answer: Eugenics in the US from 1907 to 1981 included the compulsory sterilization, by government decision, of 65,000 people, in order to “improve” the genetic pool. The new technology allows parents to make genetic decisions for their children in the same way they decide about ritalin or silicone implants to “improve” their behavior or appearance. If parental decisions regarding reproduction were to be prevented, the government should intervene again, but this time against improving the genetic pool. Giving the same name (eugenics) to these two different scenarios seems unnecessarily confusing. We should talk about benefits and risks; yes. Often, and bringing as many people as possible into the discussion.
In its early steps on the scene, genetic engineering and its servants were brazenly honest about their achievements, expecting that awe would extinguish any concerns. Until a few years ago, biotechnologists did not speak about therapies for incurable diseases and healthy embryos, but about enhanced soldiers, genetic pharmacies on the battlefield, and neural networks controlling weapons systems. Because genetic engineering is a child of DARPA and a direct product of military laboratories, the language it spoke was that of war. However, when it was realized that more fear and repulsion were being caused, the declared goal changed and shifted to a more soteriological field. “Do not fear, fools! We are not building terminators. Genetic technologies will extinguish incurable diseases, will save embryos condemned to disability, will eliminate diabetes, obesity and predisposition to depression, will guarantee a life of health and perpetual healing…” Is there any rational person who would reject the feasible vision of the genetically enhanced post-human? Is there really?
The average social fantasy about genetic engineering is that of on-demand and on-the-spot technology. Personalized therapies and enhancements, made to order, will be offered to whoever has the ability to acquire them, just as is the case with every other product of hyper-technologized capitalism. This is a convenient illusion, for as long as the relevant technology is still under development. However, when—and if!—biotechnologies become established, their consequences will be so radically intense that surely no “consumer” will be deciding voluntarily; rather, it will be the state that imposes, obligates, excludes, or permits. This is not futurology or speculation; in the case of mRNA platforms, the state has already shown with an iron fist how genetic engineering will be applied.
In the meantime, fantasies are allowed freely. Extended youth, made-to-order babies, life without incurable diseases, a body without flaws? Absolutely! Moreover, such deception—that science and technology improve and save—is precisely what will allow genetic technology to carry out extensive and mass experiments; and when it happens, it won’t even be the first time.
We are now at a stage where, despite epic announcements of precision interventions and state-of-the-art technologies, genome engineers are blindly hacking away with the axe, destroying DNA. Essentially, they ignore what exactly they are doing; they have a partial or even completely wrong picture, and equally little understanding of the sequence of consequences triggered by their interventions. And so they will continue, since they now have the freedom to experiment openly and without consequences on the general population. Unless…
“Positive” results (according to the “positive eugenics”) may emerge. But then it is that genetic engineering will return to its starting point, as a technology for manufacturing bodies enlisted in the service of capital, for war or labor. Resilience, productivity, genetic spare parts, and easy replacement for the common people. And at the same time, enhancement of the “race,” doctored health, and bodily investments for those who are children of a superior god. After several decades of marginalization, the eugenic vision of “superiority” returns, this time aboard the biotechnology chariot.
The four texts that follow describe from different angles the current trend of genetic engineering. The first refers to the famous gene-editing technique CRISPR-Cas9 and ongoing research into its dangerous and uncontrolled consequences; ultimately, it’s not only “technophobes” who oppose it—criticism is also voiced within the biotechnology profession itself. The next two concern eugenic biotechnology and designer babies, or made-to-order babies. They describe in a scathing manner the post-human philosophical concerns of elites and their fervent expectations of improving their own genetic pool—with what other goal than dominance? The last focuses on the film Gattaca, which you should definitely watch if you haven’t already. In the society of Gattaca, the division lies between the Valids—those genetically enhanced—and the In-Valids—those born without interventions in their genome—while social control is universal through DNA. Before technologies for genome mapping and genetic engineering existed, Gattaca could still be counted among the “prophetic,” futuristic films. Not anymore, however, and this is what the text argues. Reality has already begun to surpass it and prescribe situations just as dark as the dystopia of Gattaca, if not worse.
Harry Tuttle