Topics: Civics, Civil Rights, Civilization, Democracy, Economics, Education, Existentialism
Carrie Buck and her mother (left panel) were both labelled as “feebleminded,” shorthand for unintelligent and undesirable. In the 1927 the Supreme Court case, Buck v. Bell, judges endorsed the surgical sterilization of Carrie Buck, who was pregnant due to rape at age 16. Officials at the institution where she was sent to keep the pregnancy secret wanted to sterilize her to prevent her from passing her perceived feeblemindedness to future generations. The landmark decision set a legal precedent for the roughly 60,000 other forced sterilizations that followed. (Right panel) Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. who presided over the case.
Unfit to Breed: America’s Dark Tale of Eugenics: Former NIDDK Director Allen Spiegel Gives History of Medicine Lecture, Megan Kalomiris, NIAIDS
Eugenics is the scientifically erroneous and immoral theory of “racial improvement” and “planned breeding,” which gained popularity during the early 20th century. Eugenicists worldwide believed that they could perfect human beings and eliminate so-called social ills through genetics and heredity. They believed the use of methods such as involuntary sterilization, segregation, and social exclusion would rid society of individuals deemed by them to be unfit.
Scientific racism is an ideology that appropriates the methods and legitimacy of science to argue for the superiority of white Europeans and the inferiority of non-white people whose social and economic status have been historically marginalized. Like eugenics, scientific racism grew out of:
- The misappropriation of revolutionary advances in medicine, anatomy, and statistics during the 18th and 19th centuries.
- Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution through the mechanism of natural selection. Gregor Mendel’s laws of inheritance.
- Eugenic theories and scientific racism drew support from contemporary xenophobia, antisemitism, sexism, colonialism, and imperialism, as well as justifications of slavery, particularly in the United States.
National Human Genome Research Institute: Eugenics and Scientific Racism
Figure 1: Francis Galton.
© 2008 Eugenics Archive at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. All rights reserved.
British scientist Francis Galton (Figure 1) is perhaps best known for his studies that compared the behavioral differences between dizygotic and monozygotic twins, or perhaps for his statistical innovations, including the concepts of chi square, regression, and correlation. What many people don't realize, however, is that Galton was also the creator of the field of eugenics. In an 1869 work, Galton assembled biographical information from obituaries and other sources and constructed pedigrees of leading English families, concluding that superior intelligence and abilities were inherited with an efficiency of 20%. From this work, he coined the term "eugenics," meaning "well-born," and theorized that humanity could be improved by encouraging the fittest members of society to have more children.
Galton's ideas soon gained popularity both at home and abroad. In the United States, the eugenics movement hit its stride in the early 1900s, when increased interest in the genetics of animal breeding coincided with the rediscovery of Mendel's 1865 work demonstrating the inheritance patterns of certain characteristics in pea plants. Charles Davenport, a chicken breeder and agriculturalist, was one of the first American scientists to embrace Mendelian genetics. Through his studies of large families, Davenport uncovered valuable information regarding the inheritance of conditions such as albinism and neurofibromatosis. However, Davenport's involvement in the eugenics movement would soon overshadow these accomplishments.
Human Testing, the Eugenics Movement, and IRBs, Karen Norrgard, Ph.D. (Write Science Right) © 2008 Nature Education
Citation: Norrgard, K. (2008). Human testing, the eugenics movement, and IRBs. Nature Education 1(1):170
Yeas: 218. Nays: 214
On the "Big, Ugly Bill" (Bub).
Eugenics (noun): the study of how to arrange reproduction within a human population to increase the occurrence of heritable characteristics regarded as desirable. Developed largely by Sir Francis Galton as a method of improving the human race, eugenics was increasingly discredited as unscientific and racially biased during the 20th century, especially after the adoption of its doctrines by the Nazis to justify their treatment of Jews, disabled people, and other minority groups.
The illusion of perfection.
I posit in this posting that eugenics is the only way to understand policies leading to an "Alligator Alcatraz." It is not only calling back to a halcyon past that never existed, but it is actively trying to accomplish a pure ethno-state using brute force, tactics made infamous by Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and projecting the pejoratives “communist” and "socialist,” oblivious to the definitions and distinctions. And like any political or economic philosophy, including capitalism, some insiders will "game the system" so that it only benefits their group, and leaves the rest looking to the state for guidance, bewildered and unmoored.
However, as is my habit of late, and Claude.ai hasn’t given me any indication that it’s gone full-Skynet (yet), I posed the following question:
“What is the likely outcome of a society that organizes itself to follow the pseudoscience of eugenics?”
The AI titled its answer as:
“Consequences of Eugenic Social Organization.”
A society organized around eugenic principles would likely face severe and destructive outcomes across multiple dimensions:
Human rights violations and persecution:
Eugenics inevitably leads to systematic discrimination and violence against groups deemed “unfit.” Historical examples show this progresses from forced sterilizations to genocide, as seen in Nazi Germany where eugenic ideology provided justification for the Holocaust.
Social fragmentation and conflict:
Creating hierarchies of human worth generates deep social divisions, resentment, and instability. Groups targeted for persecution may resist, while others may compete to avoid being classified as “inferior,” leading to widespread social tensions.
Loss of genetic diversity:
Contrary to eugenic goals, reducing human genetic diversity actually weakens populations by eliminating potentially beneficial traits and increasing vulnerability to diseases. Many traits considered “undesirable” may carry hidden advantages or become valuable under changing conditions.
Scientific and cultural stagnation:
Suppressing entire groups eliminates their potential contributions to knowledge, arts, and innovation. Many individuals who might have made significant discoveries or cultural contributions would be prevented from doing so.
Institutional corruption:
The apparatus needed to implement eugenic policies corrupts legal, medical, and educational institutions. Professionals become complicit in persecution rather than serving their intended purposes.
Economic inefficiency:
Excluding capable individuals from participation based on arbitrary biological criteria wastes human resources and reduces overall productivity and innovation.
Moral degradation:
A society that treats some humans as inherently less valuable experiences a breakdown in ethical foundations that typically extends beyond the targeted groups.
The fundamental flaw in eugenics is that it’s based on scientifically incorrect assumptions about heredity, human worth, and social progress, making any society built on these principles inherently unstable and destructive.
Claude could have written today’s headlines.