As promised in one of my earlier comments, let’s talk about eugenics. I’m sure all of you are going, “geez, Fred’s the next Hitler!! He supports eugenics”. Well, not really. First of all, this is one of those words that has been associated with such negativity that the word itself has taken on a very derogatory meaning. So when I say I support the general principles of eugenics, here’s the definition I have in mind:
“The study of or belief in the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population, especially by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics).”
This is not a new theory or idea and is readily available in nature under the name “natural selection”. Everything in nature follows the general principle of natural selection. Humans as a species would not have come about if not for natural selection (I see all of the religious nut-jobs going “that’s preposterous! God created us exactly as we are today”. Sorry folks, not true; get back to reality here). So in it’s basic definition, eugenics is not a bad idea. It simply suggests that the good genes of a population will triumph and produce better genes and the bad genes will wither away leaving room for the good ones.
However, what’s wrong and dangerous is man trying to control that for his/her own agenda. This is where most of the abuse of this idea comes from. Most people immediately associate eugenics to the mass murders committed by Hitler and his Nazis. True… they were the biggest offenders of this. But they actually got their ideas for this from the American eugenics movement which lasted from 1907 all the way through 1960. It started off with the principle that some people (white, rich, healthy) were better suited to procreate than others (non-white, poor, sick, mentally unstable, burden to society). As this propaganda grew, the natural direction it took was “So, what do we do about it”. Some suggested restricting such people from procreating, but that wasn’t easy to implement. So that led to sterilizations, both forcibly and unknowingly (as in, call them in to do some “tests” and sterilize them without getting their permission to do so). This was supported by an overwhelming section of the population including politicians, government officials and of course, the church.
Anyway, coming back to the question of “should any form of eugenics be practiced”, I tend to say yes. Before you judge me, tell me if you think people on welfare should really have 6 kids just to claim more welfare benefits? Tell me if people like the Octomom should be allowed to do what she did to make money off the entertainment value? Tell me if people who are certified as mentally disabled (insane) should be allowed to mate and have offsprings that they cannot take care of and end up being the state’s (read yours and my) problem.
There are safe alternatives to permanent sterilization; there’s a drug developed in the 90’s called Norplant, which when implanted in a woman, prevents pregnancy for up to 5 years. If you’re on welfare… well, you can’t enjoy the “free money” you’re getting and use that to get knocked up and get more free money; you’ll have to agree to this “blackout period” if you will until you get your own life in order. Is that such a bad thing to advocate? That seems like the logical thing most of us would do, but for the ignorant few that don’t care or want to take advantage of these things, these kinds of mandatory rules is what it would take.
You’ll be surprised by how many bills there are currently pending with the congress that touch upon eugenics principles. In Florida, there’s a bill pending that would offer $400 for men living below the poverty line for undergoing a vasectomy. In Colorado, the bill would allow certain criminals early release or reduced sentence for the same. Sounds crazy? Well, desperate times…
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
So should the government enforce the use of this drug , or should it be voluntary? Are you talking about giving incentives to have the less abled not procreate? It just opens up a whole can of worms, especially in our politically correct and litigious society. Not a bad idea in theory, though!
Anytime you trust the government to do something, they'll find a way to screw it up! So no, I don't want the government to enforce the use of any drug. But, it surely can give incentives to people to not procreate! I don't know why everyone thinks of procreation as something they "have" to do... it's not. In its basic meaning, procreation is a species' way of ensuring the continuation of it's existence. In the case of humans, if anything, we've over-populated the species! So this notion of "everyone needs to procreate or else..." is flawed. So if people buy into that premise, then the logical conclusion of who shouldn't contribute to human population growth is obviously people from poverty and disease stricken nations and people who are physically and mentally incapable of taking care of themselves, let alone their offsprings. This is probably not very PC, but one way to curb the increasing AIDS epidemic in Africa is to simply find a way to prohibit people from having babies. Anyone who objects to that thought should take one good look at a malnourished, HIV-positive 2 year old child on the streets of Africa whose dad is unknown and the mom is herself sick and dying and tell me if that child, given a choice, would have chosen to be born into that kind of a life. Would you??
Violent felons should be sterilized on the second offense, not only because criminal tendencies are significantly heritable (or at least highly correlated in families through a combination of genetic, environmental and social factors), but also because someone in prison cannot take care of a child.
Beyond this, we could have a rigorous battery of intelligence tests. If someone scores low, they could volunteer for a vasectomy or tubal ligation, and they get a hefty tax credit each year for life. Conversely, if someone scores high, they get a scalable tax credit for having more children. There's no master race involved here and no one gets killed.
bk, interesting idea, but you and I know that this will never be put into practice. People consider procreation as a god-given right. Only when they realize the responsibility it carries will they stop abusing it. Unfortunately it's not illegal; just stupid. I do like the idea of making it voluntary and free, but can you imagine the law suits in this country if something were to go wrong or if a person changes their mind later and sues the system for having "forced" him/her into it?
Political correctness is the root cause of failure of most advanced societies.
Thanks for your comment though.
Post a Comment