Eugenics Is Always Scientifically Wrong
Stop trying to validate it
According to some overly hyped biology professors and students, eugenics is considered to be beneficial and possible. However, it will never be beneficial or possible because it can never work. The reason eugenics may be considered as a possibility is due to the technological advances in genetic engineering. Some people are under the illusion that genetic engineering can finally validate eugenics.
It cannot do this and never will.
Validating eugenics is not only wrong on a moral level but a scientific one. It is difficult to settle an agreement on the morality of eugenics because people may have different moral values, but eugenics cannot be scientifically validated and therefore should never be considered beneficial or valid ever again.
Eugenics is like a weed that keeps popping out of a garden, destroying nutrients for the pretty flowers and vegetables and taking up space when it is completely unnecessary and does not belong in the garden. We need to stop attempting to validate a weed in a garden when the weed does not belong there. Instead of allowing the weed to keep popping up after destroying its leaves, we need to pull it out by the roots. We can scientifically do this with eugenics.
It began with Francis Galton, a knighted polymath-psychologist-inventor-meteorologist-geographer and creator of the concept of correlation. He attempted to ascertain individual differences in psychology and tried to validate eugenics. He believed that only "intelligent" people should reproduce to create a better human race. He tried to follow Mendel's genetic principles to see if this was possible. He believed that there were "defective" families. Guess what, he was wrong.
The reason for this can be understood by Alfred Adler, the founder of the idea of the superiority and inferiority complex. According to Adler, people have a sense of inferiority and try to gain superiority over their environment. This sometimes is applied to feeling superiority over other people. People tried to validate feeling superior to other people via eugenics. These erroneous ideals were manifested in Hitler during World War II. Hitler believed that only the most "purest" blondes and blue-eyed people should procreate because they exhibited Aryan features.
Fortunately, Hitler was proven wrong. There is no intellectual difference in people based upon their skin tone, eye color, hair color, and religion. Although eye color, hair color, and skin tone are more heritable, intelligence is not.
So why are people trying to validate eugenics after Hitler was proven wrong? The answer is genetic engineering.
There are people who believe that they can "design" the perfect child, and these people are also wrong. People need to stop trying to validate eugenics when it is not scientifically possible.
The reason why eugenics will never work is because of the nature vs. nurture controversy. Although we have genomes that give us the material for how we grow and develop, these genes are activated by our environment throughout our lives. Genes are like light switches. If a fetus is given the right nutrients while in the womb, then all the right switches will be turned on and off at the right times. However, genes are also dependent upon how the person interacts with their environment for the rest of their life.
People are under the impression that they can force a child to have all the "right" genes and be a perfect child. However, those genes will not be activated correctly unless that child is under "perfect" environmental conditions.
For argument's sake, let's say that someone could provide the "perfect" environmental conditions for the "perfect" child to grow up. Eugenics still will not work because we don't have one single gene for every trait, talent, or temperament.
According to 23andme.com, there is no gene that gives someone perfect quarterback skills in football. There is no gene that makes someone a perfect dancer, singer, scientist, or doctor. There are no genes that account for kindness, integrity, being goal-oriented, discipline, charisma, or beauty. There may be a gene for dark hair, but not an exact shade. There may be a gene for athletic muscles, but not the entire build of a person's body. We cannot determine the full body shape of genetics.
There is 1 gene associated with episodic memory, 1 gene that is associated with dyslexia, and 1 gene for learning from errors. These 3 genes are the closest to measuring genetic intelligence, but not even these genes can determine full intellectual potential. They can increase the power of episodic memory, severe dyslexia, and learning from errors. Although these traits are associated with intelligence, they cannot fully determine intelligence when they are isolated.
The human genome is too convoluted for eugenics because certain traits are produced from the complex interactions of multiple genes that we do not understand. Even if we could understand them, they would only be activated by the right environmental cues. To make the "perfect" person would be to genetically engineer them and control every single environmental factor in that person's life. It's not possible. The human genome is like clay that is sculpted by the environment to each and every one of us. The environment has a little more power and influence.
Morally, eugenics is also wrong. Eugenics tries to validate superiority complexes of people who are actually on equal ground with everyone else. We are all human. We all convert oxygen into carbon dioxide, we all drink water, and we all matter because we are made of matter and how we feel matters.
Stop trying to validate eugenics because it will always be scientifically and morally wrong.
A sign from the March for Life which contains similar rhetoric to that employed by Dr. Storer
Genetically Modification Could Save Future Babies From Illnesses, But Also Pose New Issues
Now imagine if people can breed smarter, stronger, and (sociologically) more attractive kids? The problem is that the possibilities are truly endless, and this experience has insidious implications.
You read that right. He Jiankui, a renowned scientist from China, has created the first two human genetically modified babies. The technology is called CRISPR/Cas9, and it's the same tech that we use to modify plants like soy.
My first question was "are people just allowed to do that?" Well, depends on what country you live in. In the US for example, there are at the least minimal regulations based on ethics. However, this hasn't stalled us from innovating at a startling pace. America only lagged two years behind China for the first genetic modifications to a human embryo. Since it is seen as far more controversial in Western nations, we have seen the slight delay of creating genetically modified babies. But make no mistake, it is only a lag. Not a prevention.
Many critics of this innovation echo the sentiment of Eric Topol, a geneticist at the Scripps Research Institute, who said, "We're talking about changing every cell of the human body's 37 trillion cells. That's never been done before. And it was done in a rogue fashion.''
But the changing of our genetics begs a bigger question than the way it was accomplished.
Should we be able to alter our genes?
People inside and outside the scientific community are saying no, and for many different reasons. The first deals with whether or not we should diagnose embryos with genetic diseases and cure them before the infant is born, and then use genetic modification as a direct solution. For example, He was altering the embryos in order to prevent the HIV that they would have from their fathers. However, there are already scientific methods that do not involve genetic modification, such as "washing" the sperm of the HIV. The truth is, once this technology hits the market, we can't currently regulate which method people will choose. And CRISPR kits are already inexpensive online, rounding up to about $1,000. There's a lack of legal understanding, in the US and abroad, on whether or not these experimentations are legal. This compounds the problem when the effects of this innovation can be massive and devastating.
The next controversy deals with "designer babies." This is a concept developed from the imagination of what gene editing could bring, with a terrifyingly familiar tune of eugenics. Will people begin crafting a "superior race"? As one can imagine, this will only be accessible to the wealthy one-percenters who already have paramount advantages over the rest of the population. Now imagine if people can breed smarter, stronger, and (sociologically) more attractive kids? The problem is that the possibilities are truly endless, and this experience has insidious implications.