It’s important to separate the personal from the political here. You’re right that not every instance of genetic selection is equivalent to Nazi-style eugenics. But you say that eugenics is “not inherently bad” without really looking at proper definitions or recognising the deep social and historical baggage it carries, especially in how it’s been used to justify racism, ableism, and state violence, and that risks repeating the same logic that allowed those atrocities in the first place.
Choosing not to pass on genetic diseases through voluntary IVF and screening isn’t the same as state-led population engineering which is what eugenics often refers to politically. The key difference is consent and context.
When you talk about selecting against diseases like sickle-cell anaemia, you also have to ask: who defines what counts as a “horrible illness”? Who decides which lives are worth living? (For example, your example of sickle cell anemia comes with the caveat that this illness makes one immune to malaria, which is why it evolved in a significant chunk of the subsaharan african population. Yet Sickle cell anemia was also a favourite scapegoat by 20th century eugenicists to argue that african genes were “inferior”).
Historically, eugenics has disproportionately targeted disabled people, people of colour, poor people, communities with less power. Even modern-day genetic screening isn’t free from those power dynamics. So, no, it’s not “propaganda” to be against eugenics, it’s a necessary ethical stance informed by history and lived experience.
And the IVF example isn’t really eugenics as it is understood. For example, here is the wikipedia definition of eugenics:
Eugenics (/juːˈdʒɛnɪks/yoo-JEN-iks; from Ancient Greek **εύ̃ (eû) ‘good, well’ and **-γενής (genḗs) ‘born, come into being, growing/grown’)[1] is a set of largely discredited beliefs and practices that aim to improve the genetic quality of a human population.[2][3][4] Historically, eugenicists have attempted to alter the frequency of various human phenotypes by inhibiting the fertility of those considered inferior, or promoting that of those considered superior.
So a better example of eugenics is for example the nazi slaughter of 80% of people with schizophrenia. Thinking that by “removing the bad genes” schizophrenia will go away. Yet modern day germany has an average rate of schizophrenia, so that didn’t work. (Ignoring that fact it was literally genocide and is morally apprehensible in nearly every way).
We actually completely agree about everything, including the typical definition of eugenics. Here’s the problem though: when an actually good thing comes along which is technically eugenics (such as the aforementioned IVF programs), it can be called “eugenics” by opponents without much recourse. What’s the solution? Is there a defence along the lines of, “it’s not eugenics, it’s actually <some other word>,” or is the better move to say “not all eugenics is bad” (but more tactfully than that).
The trouble with the former move is that whatever word is chosen will be co-opted by lunatics like Beattie, and then using the word is just going to look like a dog-whistle or something. So unfortunately I’m stuck waving my hands trying to find the least-appalling way to say “#notalleugenics.”
Please, your input is greatly desired as to what to say here. Because I do actually believe in the (DONOTTAKE THIS OUT OF CONTEXT) power of good eugenics. You say that I should be discussing the ableist, racist, and other problematic aspects associated with eugenics – I feel like me and my target audience are all aware of these aspects, so you’re essentially saying I should include some form of wrapping to make a pill that can be swallowed more easily to get across my actual point. I don’t necessarily agree with this as it seems manipulative, like a Trojan horse, but I’m open to hearing what you have to say.
(Regarding sickle-cell – people who have it generally say it’s a horrible illness. It causes immense pain and suffering, and could be resolved with easier access to IVF. I could have chosen another genetic illness, it’s just the first one that came to mind because I watched The Pitt recently. I’ll admit that choosing an African-associated genetic illness is not a good look for me lol.)
When you say ‘right’ it sounds like it’s a forgone conclusion that eugenics is not a good term for the things I’m talking about, or that it’s somehow morally reprehensible to refer to stuff like selecting out genetic illnesses as eugenics. It seems to me to be eugenics though.
I think the word is tainted beyond usability. I have a visceral negative reaction to someone promoting eugenics.
I say just drop the word and say what you really mean. Something like- I support increased prenatal screenings and new technologies like CRISPR to reduce the suffering of humanity.
Fair enough, but what do I say when someone says “isn’t that eugenics?” Society has a deep-set opposition to the idea genes affect ones life in any way, but they do, and we should recognize that so that we can make progress toward reducing human suffering. Sincerely, the reason people dislike this idea is because it sounds like eugenics.
It’s important to separate the personal from the political here. You’re right that not every instance of genetic selection is equivalent to Nazi-style eugenics. But you say that eugenics is “not inherently bad” without really looking at proper definitions or recognising the deep social and historical baggage it carries, especially in how it’s been used to justify racism, ableism, and state violence, and that risks repeating the same logic that allowed those atrocities in the first place.
Choosing not to pass on genetic diseases through voluntary IVF and screening isn’t the same as state-led population engineering which is what eugenics often refers to politically. The key difference is consent and context.
When you talk about selecting against diseases like sickle-cell anaemia, you also have to ask: who defines what counts as a “horrible illness”? Who decides which lives are worth living? (For example, your example of sickle cell anemia comes with the caveat that this illness makes one immune to malaria, which is why it evolved in a significant chunk of the subsaharan african population. Yet Sickle cell anemia was also a favourite scapegoat by 20th century eugenicists to argue that african genes were “inferior”).
Historically, eugenics has disproportionately targeted disabled people, people of colour, poor people, communities with less power. Even modern-day genetic screening isn’t free from those power dynamics. So, no, it’s not “propaganda” to be against eugenics, it’s a necessary ethical stance informed by history and lived experience.
And the IVF example isn’t really eugenics as it is understood. For example, here is the wikipedia definition of eugenics:
So a better example of eugenics is for example the nazi slaughter of 80% of people with schizophrenia. Thinking that by “removing the bad genes” schizophrenia will go away. Yet modern day germany has an average rate of schizophrenia, so that didn’t work. (Ignoring that fact it was literally genocide and is morally apprehensible in nearly every way).
We actually completely agree about everything, including the typical definition of eugenics. Here’s the problem though: when an actually good thing comes along which is technically eugenics (such as the aforementioned IVF programs), it can be called “eugenics” by opponents without much recourse. What’s the solution? Is there a defence along the lines of, “it’s not eugenics, it’s actually <some other word>,” or is the better move to say “not all eugenics is bad” (but more tactfully than that).
The trouble with the former move is that whatever word is chosen will be co-opted by lunatics like Beattie, and then using the word is just going to look like a dog-whistle or something. So unfortunately I’m stuck waving my hands trying to find the least-appalling way to say “#notalleugenics.”
Please, your input is greatly desired as to what to say here. Because I do actually believe in the (
DO NOT TAKE THIS OUT OF CONTEXT) power of good eugenics. You say that I should be discussing the ableist, racist, and other problematic aspects associated with eugenics – I feel like me and my target audience are all aware of these aspects, so you’re essentially saying I should include some form of wrapping to make a pill that can be swallowed more easily to get across my actual point. I don’t necessarily agree with this as it seems manipulative, like a Trojan horse, but I’m open to hearing what you have to say.(Regarding sickle-cell – people who have it generally say it’s a horrible illness. It causes immense pain and suffering, and could be resolved with easier access to IVF. I could have chosen another genetic illness, it’s just the first one that came to mind because I watched The Pitt recently. I’ll admit that choosing an African-associated genetic illness is not a good look for me lol.)
deleted by creator
When you say ‘right’ it sounds like it’s a forgone conclusion that eugenics is not a good term for the things I’m talking about, or that it’s somehow morally reprehensible to refer to stuff like selecting out genetic illnesses as eugenics. It seems to me to be eugenics though.
I think the word is tainted beyond usability. I have a visceral negative reaction to someone promoting eugenics.
I say just drop the word and say what you really mean. Something like- I support increased prenatal screenings and new technologies like CRISPR to reduce the suffering of humanity.
Fair enough, but what do I say when someone says “isn’t that eugenics?” Society has a deep-set opposition to the idea genes affect ones life in any way, but they do, and we should recognize that so that we can make progress toward reducing human suffering. Sincerely, the reason people dislike this idea is because it sounds like eugenics.