Eugenics Has Become Personal
The new eugenic intention seems to be not only pro-life but pro-quality of every life. The choice will be for every person against nature’s randomness and indifference.
Peter Lawler is Dana Professor of Government and former chair of the department of Government and International Studies at Berry College. He serves as executive editor of the journal Perspectives on Political Science, and has been chair of the politics and literature section of the American Political Science Association. He also served on the editorial board of the new bilingual critical edition of Alexis de Tocqueville’s Democracy in America, and serves on the editorial boards of several journals. He has written or edited fifteen books and over 200 articles and chapters in a wide variety of venues. He was the 2007 winner of the Weaver Prize in Scholarly Letters.\r\n\r\nLawler served on President Bush's Council on Bioethics from 2004 – 09. His most recent book, Modern and American Dignity, is available from ISI Books.\r\n\r\nFollow him on Twitter @peteralawler.
We’re repulsed these days by the tyrannical idea that biotechnological enhancement is really eugenics—or a way of improving the human “herd” the way we’ve “improved” so many of the other species. Certainly every such eugenics scheme of the past has been authoritatively discredited. Nobody who reads Plato’s Republic these days, for example, actually thinks it’s just to have government secretly control marriage and reproduction to improve the genetic quality of citizens. We think of people as persons, not citizens; we know they’re not expendable parts of some civic whole. More than ever, we think of choices concerning marriage, sexual partners, and having babies as matters of personal autonomy. The Supreme Court, in Planned Parenthood v. Casey has said, for example, that women, like men, are free to define their own personal identities, and so they’re free not to have babies, even babies already in their wombs.
We also, of course recoil in horror from allegedly Darwinian Progressivist efforts to sterilize the unfit to improve the competitive edge of the species, and even more from the more horrifying Nazis’ efforts to strengthen and purify the racial identity of the nation. And even those who notice that it couldn’t be good that the most accomplished and sophisticated people with the highest I.Q.s and all that aren’t reproducing much these days, while those who seem to be a bit short on genetic gifts are doing so in larger numbers, don’t think government should do anything to remedy that situation
Biotechnological enhancement will be different from the old eugenics in all sorts of obvious ways. It will, first of all, really work by transforming nature or as part of conscious and volitional evolution. It won’t be another ridiculous effort to consciously direct merely natural or impersonal evolution. It will also be directed toward what’s best for every human person. The goal will always be personal or not in any sense coercive or collective. The result must secure the consent of any person intelligently concerned with his or her security or flourishing. Everyone agrees these days that even babies to be genetically modified are ends in themselves. That means the enhancement must be good for the baby as a person and not as part of a family or country or anything else.
We don’t even think that the parent’s personal opinion about what’s best for the child should be the standard. Their judgment must be reasonable from the child’s personal view. It’s that kind of “reasonability test” that allows courts, for example, to force the Jehovah’s Witness parents to allow their children to have blood transfusions. No parent will be able to choose enhancements that will condemn the child to an unnecessarily risky or painful life. Surely parents won’t be able to choose deafness for their child in order that he or she be totally integrated into the deaf community to which her deaf parents belong.
There are limits to indulging the parental desire that the child be like them. Some have to do with health and safety, others with restricting genetically the child’s freedom to choose his or her own “lifeplan.” The point of enhancement is to secure the person as far as possible against alien—meaning first of all natural but also finally political and parental—determination.
“While liberal eugenics is a less dangerous doctrine than the old eugenics,” the communitarian Sandel complains, “it is also less idealistic.” The old eugenics, “for all its folly and darkness,” aspired “to improve humankind, or to promote the collective welfare of whole societies.” The new eugenics “shrinks from collective ambitions…of social reform.” Its more modest and obviously selfish goal is to “arm” children “for success in a competitive society.” Its goal, in other words, is nothing more than personal, and so has nothing do with what’s best for “humankind” or even a whole society.[i] “People want genetic technology,” libertarian Virginia Postrel explains, “because they expect to use it for themselves, to help themselves and their children.”
A monstrous downside of the old eugenics was the thought that persons with a low quality of life don’t even deserve to live. The new eugenic intention seems to be not only pro-life but pro-quality of every life. The choice will be for every person against nature’s randomness and indifference.
Here's the science of black holes, from supermassive monsters to ones the size of ping-pong balls.
- There's more than one way to make a black hole, says NASA's Michelle Thaller. They're not always formed from dead stars. For example, there are teeny tiny black holes all around us, the result of high-energy cosmic rays slamming into our atmosphere with enough force to cram matter together so densely that no light can escape.
- CERN is trying to create artificial black holes right now, but don't worry, it's not dangerous. Scientists there are attempting to smash two particles together with such intensity that it creates a black hole that would live for just a millionth of a second.
- Thaller uses a brilliant analogy involving a rubber sheet, a marble, and an elephant to explain why different black holes have varying densities. Watch and learn!
- Bonus fact: If the Earth became a black hole, it would be crushed to the size of a ping-pong ball.
Military recruits are supposed to be assessed to see whether they're fit for service. What happens when they're not?
- During the Vietnam War, Robert McNamara began a program called Project 100,000.
- The program brought over 300,000 men to Vietnam who failed to meet minimum criteria for military service, both physically and mentally.
- Project 100,000 recruits were killed in disproportionate numbers and fared worse after their military service than their civilian peers, making the program one of the biggest—and possibly cruelest—mistakes of the Vietnam War.
In a breakthrough for nuclear fusion research, scientists at China's Experimental Advanced Superconducting Tokamak (EAST) reactor have produced temperatures necessary for nuclear fusion on Earth.
- The EAST reactor was able to heat hydrogen to temperatures exceeding 100 million degrees Celsius.
- Nuclear fusion could someday provide the planet with a virtually limitless supply of clean energy.
- Still, scientists have many other obstacles to pass before fusion technology becomes a viable energy source.
SMARTER FASTER trademarks owned by The Big Think, Inc. All rights reserved.