From sticks and stones to unbreakble bones
ideas that people have , go through a winding path, the idea gets involved with other ideas, builds up, evolves, and so what we start never shows itself whole. If there is an inevitability to things, it is mostly well-hidden.
Man took a long stick, made one end pointy. He had in mind certain applications for this contraption. as the fire dimmed in the cave, and the work was done, he must have spent a sleepless night, thinking of the possibilities. What he will do when dawn breaks, and he could grab that stick and start field testing.
He did not envision, i am almost sure that someday, someone will take his stick make the pointy end a little bit dull, coat it with laquer, and then use it to hit polished wooden spheres with precision, upon a felt-covered table with six holes cleverly dug on the corners and the midpoint of the longer sides. The rules of this game, the chalk he would use, to 'soften' the tip, the beer that would be occasionally drunk in conjunction, the loud music. All probably escaped our anscestors' imagination.
The lesson we get from this is, obviously, that ther are so many consequances that we have no idea of or any hope to seriouly anticipate. Some of it may be very beneficial some most destructive. even the difference between the short term and the long term may be completely misleading. What seems to be terrible at the onset may seem to be the best thing in the long run.
What then, is the purpose of eugenics? Simply put, it is the concerted attempt to rid our species of undesirable traits. In a way, it has been practiced on some level from the dawn of man, with the rejection of individuals who did not meet some standard . babies who were born with deformities, for exmple , were often abandoned, adults who did not look "right" were shunned or disallowed the prospect of marriage and union. The moral caviat is made apparent instantly; what are the standards that are imposed, to distinguish those who are 'undersirables' to those who are not?
Who gets to make the call? What is THEIR motivation? Cliches upon tropes...
it immidiately raises the question of racism, or body image. having learned progressively more about the role of biological diversity, the threat of actively thinning out the gene pool, ostensibly to remove undesirable traits is a concern and the more "scientific" objection to the idea: not all is what it seems. Once traits are removed, even if they appear weak or unproductive in some way, they are gone and can not be there to ressusitate our species, in a conceivable event that only those traits, or only those individuals that held these traits are missing from our species.
But are these rational arguments? Are the fears of a Darwinist doom, justified?
Are the moral boundries which we so desperately hope exist really broken by this idea of selective breeding?
The fact that eugenics has been associated with some of the most neferious governments and people in history has also not helped the rational argument. people who do evil are not necesserily incapable of doing things that are beneficial , or entertaining "good" thoughts. Could it be the eugenics is one of those good thoughts, shining in very dark minds?
though methods they employ or steps that they take nor (most importantly for this essay)the interpertations that they make for other ideas and facts. Could it be that through some miracle, we lost sight of the idea from looking at the people that entertained it before us?
I can see the fear though. We will create a species, were all are strong, healthy, attarctive, highly dexterous in thought and action, capable of working together, yet possessing a competitive, individialistic spirit. I can see the concern, that all divergence will be bred out, ideally. Yeah, scarry. As my composition teacher often called my work: white bread with mayonnaise. Nothing spicy, nothing interesting. Nothing to really prepare that master race for calamity and hardship. But is that really the necessary outcome of a wide ranging policy?
Furthermore, it seems, that there is this innate fear in many cultures of monster creation. The fear that the son will rise above and destroy his parent returns again and again in many forms, from the greek Oedipus, to the golem of Prague. today that fear is menifested in a very real way, with the creation of artificial intelligence.
are the fears of long-term genetic enhancment of our genes really justified?
When we made that long stick with a pointy end, did we consider the posdibility of letting go of such dangerous tools, because they could conceivably be used against other people? Didn't we do a fantastic job of eliminating all of our hominid ancesstors? Will the supermen we create think of sharp-pointy-stick equivalents to run us through with?
I propose that we already practice eugenics.
We do so in the form of idealising certain traits, versus others, shaming and marginilizing people, based on superficial , or prejudiced conceptions.
We do so with abortion. An unwanted foetus, is aborted. It doesn't really matter why it was done so. Wether a pregnancy was unwanted or a certain defect was found. It was AVOIDED.
We make borders between people and enact laws that prohibit the risk of migration and integration, out of some hope that the definition of a nation will be ostensibly a series of similar individuals.
The only difference between these current examples, and eugenics, is that these desicions are made reactively. They are not policies that look towards a betterment of the species.
Now, this is where i get suspicious: did humanity ever erect a policy of central control that looks forward , with improvment in mind, without it going horribly wrong?
Is the concept of eugenics something that could be separated from utopian thought?
I say that this is the real test: if eugenics is meant to create a better world for humanity, then it is utopian by essence and so should be rejected! We are not capable of utopias. We just hurt and destroy when we try . the more advanced the tools we possess, the worst it inevitably gets.
If eugenics is treated though conceptually as a more survivalist attitude, and just re-labled as genetic enhancment then perhaps it does have a place. We practice genetic enhancment on many organisms we make use of, and are getting better at it all the time. The usage of genetic modification on specific individuals has also been tentatively practiced . when i was growing up, cistic fibrosis (CF) a genetic desease, was a death sentence at an early age. It is now treated with engineered viruses, that inject corrected genetic code into the patiant's lungs.
We seem to have got past certain technological and normative barriers .
The dangers our species will face are unpredictable to some extent.
We may need to insert some traits to our pool, to protect ourselves from extinction. It is fitting that many of the dangers we face, are of our own making. We can not forsee the unintended consequenses of our action by definition, the least we could do, is try applying our acumen towards survival.
Oddly this concept of gentic borrowing has occured since the dawn of life on this planet, with organisms of different species sharing genetic material. Are these survival freaks to be scorned or learned from?
When we made that long stick with a pointy end, we looked with positivity and optimism at the future, if it wasn't for that, we'd have gone on fighting the cavebears with our nails. . Could we not readopt this outlook?
So. How could we adopt a non-utopian, non-arbitrary, unbiased, and flexible intentional intervention in our collective genetic makeup?
Well...