The Double-Edged Sword of Eugenics: Perfection at What Cost?

Eugenics is a difficult topic that has been debated for years. Since the beginning of time, humans have been obsessed with trying to obtain perfection as a species, constantly comparing themselves to their peers and altering themselves accordingly. Now, with new advancements in technology, humans have a new way to achieve this so-called “perfection”: through the use of eugenics. Eugenics is the attempt to improve or control the qualities of the human species or a human population by promoting or avoiding specific traits (1). Although eugenic practices have been around for centuries, this recent widespread has allowed eugenics to develop in various, innovative forms. Forms incluing everything from abortion to somatic gene editing. These variations have allowed eugenics to be accessed and used by millions of people all around the world. Although this idea of widespread accessible eugenics is alluring and presents the idea of promoting the wellbeing amongst future generations, it is seen through the lens of an ideal world where everyone is equal. In reality, eugenic technologies have the ability to completely alter the way humans function as individuals, as well as under a government.

A main concern surrounding eugenic technologies is that they will continue to perpetuate inequality amongst individuals. Social inequality refers to the unequal access and distribution of resources and rights. These inequalities are built into everyday human existence as a result of organized hierarchies and bias surrounding class, race, and gender. Due to this reality, if humans were to use eugenic technologies to pick the traits they found “perfect” or “better off” through a societal lens, inequality would flourish. An example of this can be observed in the sex ratios and preferences within China (2). Due to the widespread of Confucianism in 206 B.C, the concept of male superiority over women was built into the building blocks of Chinese tradition and culture. Because of this, the births of sons rather than

daughters were (and still are) typically promoted. Hence, if a family in China chose to use eugenic technologies, they would most likely pick their child to be male. At first glance, this would appear to be in sound mind; the family is ensuring the best future for their child by allowing them to have greater access to education/jobs/opportunities as well as an automatic leg up in society. But, this choice would continue to perpetuate a sexist, patriarchal civilization not only in China, but all over the world. If every family were to choose to have a male over a female, there would be numerous, ever-increasing consequences (such as a rise in domestic violence, power imbalance, lack of reproduction, etc). This example, however, is in an ideal world where everyone in China would have equal access to these eugenic technologies. In reality, the only people who would be able to afford these eugenic technologies would be those within higher social classes (especially those which are predominately white). This would not only increase wealth disparity between people, but race superiority as well (3). It is predicted that the use of eugenics would become a common “trend” amongst wealthy families, who would use these technologies to shape their child to be the ideal, westernized view of perfection (pale skin, thin physique, straight hair, etc). This appearance would even further perpetuate social inequality: creating even more opportunities in power and influence for those already “well-off”, therefore continuing to push further bias against those who are seen as different from them. In my opinion, it is important to note that in both situations, both families are not doing anything inherently wrong; they are simply trying to provide the best life for their lineage. It is the system in which we live that is to blame. It is much easier to confine to it, rather than defy it (especially when it involves the livers of the ones we love).

Another main concern is, even though eugenic technologies are premised on individual liberty, state involvement may cause eugenics to be obligatory. Many people agree that, if a child experiences a life-threatening situation (develops cancer, catches a disease, etc), the parent(s) of the child should do everything they can to help them survive (4). By using this common agreement alongside eugenics, it is assumed that if eugenic technologies could help predict/prevent life-threatening situations from happening before the child is even born, the parent(s) are obligated to do so. If not, they are essentially neglecting their child, and therefore subject to the state's jurisdiction over their child due to denied proper parental care. Although this concept seems concrete and just, it fails to draw a solid boundary between human anatomy and government control. Which brings into question, if the government is allowed to dictate the use of eugenic technologies in order to promote the best health for its citizens, does that grant them unlimited access to use technologies for any and all given situations they deem fit? In my opinion, this control of eugenics is already being put into place, especially within the United States. A concrete example of this can be seen in the 20th century, where more than 60,000 people, who were seen as delinquent or mentally diffident, were forcefully sterilized in prisons across 32 states. Although this idea seems completely unlawful, forced sterilization is still legal and used today: due to Buck v. Bell, 17 states continue to allow the permanent, surgical sterilization of children with disabilities. A more thought provoking example can be seen within the recent overturn of Roe vs Wade, which now denies a woman (depending on the state in which she resides in) access to have an abortion. Many people are scared that this overturn will eventually give the government access to control other contraceptive methods, such as IUDs and birth control pills. My prediction is, alongside those contraceptive methods, the government will also aim to gain control of eugenics by stating that

they are “encouraging/promoting the best opportunities for human life and wellbeing” (3). Thus, I believe that governments control of eugenic technologies is inevitable; give an inch, they will take a mile (or take all of your rights). The real matter lies not in how to stop this inevitability, rather within how much power/control given to the government. This, however, also brings into question how much power people really have: the answer being more than disheartening. Relaying back to a previously stated idea, that only the wealthy can afford eugenic technologies, this demographic would also most likely be the only ones able to persuade and defy the laws in which the government would create/place. This would continue to perpetuate social inequality in a forever spinning cycle solely due to the system we live in.

Although both of these concerns are centered around the lives of individuals as well as the government they live under, the real problem doesn’t lie within eugenics itself. Infact, the overall idea around eugenics is favorable. As humans, wanting the best for our own and loved ones' lives is completely normal. Not only is it a normal human trait, it is a good trait to have as a person. The real problem lies within society itself, which continues to thoughtlessly use these powerful technologies without thinking of consequence. Eugenics are an expression of inequality and complete control, not the inherit cause.

References —

1. Human Nature (2019)

2. Michael Sandel, “The Case Against Perfection”

3. Sara Goering, Selection from “Eugenics”

4. Rebecca Bennett, “The fallacy of the principle of procreative beneficence”