Could New Eugenics Create Ideal The Way Of Life Essay

Research Question: Could new eugenics really create ideal the way of life for new generations or may new eugenics which is called liberal turn out to be illiberal like old eugenics?

Eugenics is a science which aims to improve the human race through selective reproduction. The term was coined by Francis Galton in 1833 and actually it comes from Greek word “eu” which means good and “genic” which comes from generation. The good birth “eu-generation” has been considered a reflection of Darwin’s theory of evolution in human life but in an artificial way. Eugenics aims to create the fittest generation by making offspring healthier, physically more enhanced and more intelligent. In terms of creating a better generation and accelerating human evolution eugenics and
transhumanism have common aims. Both of them aim to use technology to improve the human genome and eliminate the limitations. Although it seems they have only an influence on human biology, they have large social consequences which can change the structure of society. It could be argued that eugenics is basically getting rid of undesirables. These undesirable traits are perceived as different in terms of society and times. These traits are not limited to only mental disorders, physical disabilities and low intelligent, they have also included alcoholism and pauperism in the past. Although eugenics contains racist, biased, and unscientific aspects it still exists and it is acknowledged as a hereditary science. Today we have two definitions of eugenics which are distinguished from each other. One of them is the ‘old eugenics’ which has a coercive structure that generally involves governmental sanctions. This type of eugenics has been associated with the infraction of human rights since the Nazi eugenics programs in which many humans were killed due to the abuse of eugenic promises. These programs were manipulated by biased opinions and resulted in a disaster. Second type of eugenics is new eugenics or liberal eugenics which is created by redefining the old term and modernizing it. Modern eugenics advocates that the choice of enhancing of human characteristics and capacities lies with the individual. New eugenicists are defined as liberal due to its not having state control over the breeding and define liberal eugenics an morally justifiable. Despite the new definition eugenics is still controversial because it is hard to predict before the consequences of such a program when it is implemented. Old eugenics is criticized for there is no certain definition about which human traits are the fittest, whereas the new one is criticized because such choices are too serious to be left to the individual preferences of parents. I do not believe that new eugenics could be accomplish its promises of being liberal due to two main reasons: the first one is that parents are free to make intervention into their children’s genetics does not mean liberalism for children too; the second is that new eugenics would not stay in a liberal position over time and it would create more complexity.

That parents are free to make intervention into their children’s genetics does not mean liberalism for children. The most significant difference of new eugenics from the old one is its not being coercive. Eugenicists insist on a new definition where there is the promise that it will not give any harm to any individual’s autonomy. However they forget that children’s autonomy would be jeopardized by their parent’s choices. They would live a life which is determined from a wide range of possibilities and saying that the chosen life path is the best way for children is not fair. Every person has the right to make their own decisions according to universal human rights. If parents would make all decisions for their children before they were born is it possible to evaluate this kind of life as an ideal? Would any decision about their life remain for children? These questions are hard to answer because naturally we do not know unborn children’s preferences and we cannot consider our own child as a machine which should be improved. These disadvantages of eugenics are presented in Aldous Huxley’s dystopian novel Brave New World. In the novel people make use of technology and eugenics and they create a world without disease, war, poverty, and disabilities. As a result of eugenics programs people are separated according to their level of intelligence and these groups which are separated according to level of intelligence are named as alpha, beta, epsilon and they are produced according to the needs of the society. There is analogy between the world created in the novel and the world which new eugenicists advocate. In both of them a new generation is produced by others’ manipulation and their subject are given no choice to change the way of life. Although in Brave New World there is a liberal environment among the people like the new eugenics present there is an invisible power to intervene into people’s life. This causes the book as a dystopia actually. I think idea of liberal eugenics also can be a dystopia which would be created by the individual preferences of parents. I think the fact that children would lose their autonomy over their life is not only the disadvantage of new eugenics. The second one is that children might be lost in their parents’ high expectation. With enhanced capacities children would be forced to be involved in activities which they do not want even. A physically and mentally enhanced new generation is expected to be more successful in every area compared to the old generations. Besides there is no guarantee for every child, whose genes are selected in order to be intelligent or talented, besides achieving success because these features are also related to environmental conditions except genes. This negligence led to old eugenic programs failing; because of that it should not be overlooked again.
With the difficulty of meeting high expectations some children might not be able comfort with their extended capacities. Firstly in a more enhanced population competition would increase. For example when we compare today with the past everything is more complicated; people have to study harder to get a good job, getting education is not enough anymore. If children would be more intelligent, physically more powerful, and more capable, how would they cope with this high competition in every part of their lives? Is it possible that a child can handle these challenges even if an adult cannot cope with them? Also we assume that every child would be modified by a eugenic program and we would have perfect babies; however, if new eugenics would depend on the parents’ preferences some parents might not prefer to use this program, in the same way, today some people do not prefer to take prenatal diagnosis. This means some children would be lonely with their original genes in a world filled with genius. I claim that the distinction between people having low intelligence and high intelligence would increase and also it would affect the communication between people. What I am saying is that some children would be excluded from the society for because of parents’ choices some would have infinite capacities which even they may not actually want. These worsen the life of the new generation instead of making life easy. Most probably they would have new psychological problems with their super intelligence in the future. I do not agree that new eugenics should be embraced by society so easily without answering these questions. The first thing that should be considered is the happiness and psychology of coming generation. Although new eugenics insists that it would defend human rights and moral values I think it would not be possible by having parents create little biological machines according to their own preferences.
New eugenics could not it might be argued stay at a liberal position over time and it would create more complexity. Most eugenicists think that state not being involved in the individuals’ choices differentiates new eugenics from the old authoritarian eugenics. However I do not agree with the idea of liberal eugenics because it will eventually include some illiberalism. The first dubious thing related to liberal eugenics is the protection for the future well being of children against their parents might be required. Fox who is the author of Illiberalism of Liberal Eugenics says that:

If the liberal commitment to autonomy is important enough for the state to mandate childrearing practices such as health care and basic education, that very same interest is important enough for the state to mandate safe, effective, and functionally integrated genetic practices that act on analogous all-purpose traits such as resistance to disease and general cognitive functioning. (23)

I completely agree with him because the decision of using new eugenics programs on a child is serious. How can the state be sure that the every parent is responsible enough to take responsibility of their decisions? Even if today most parents are not seen as capable for childrearing, leaving such an important decision to them is a huge risk for future generations. From this we come to the question of whether the state should be involved for the protection of children. However it is like a vicious circle we are coming to the same conclusion over and over again and face the same problems. When the state becomes involved with the application of new eugenics, it can turn out to be same thing with the old coercive one. In addition can we count on the idea that every parent wishes the best for their children? Do we agree that parents know best for their own child? If we can say yes as answers to these questions actually we would not need any law regulating the relationship between a child and its parents. The other question to be asked is would this opportunity be accessible for every part of society? These eugenics programs are expensive like other medical application; so it is not to be expected that these high technologies be available for people who have low income. I think eugenic programs would make more distinctive the gap between rich and poor people. It would create a new technological cast system containing enhanced people, less enhanced people and people who do not have enough money to be enhanced. In conclusion when we imagine getting rid of the limitations we will create new ones. Moreover new eugenics would force people to become modified not with law but with creating social pressure in society. In his article A Not-So-New Eugenics Roberts Sparrow argues that if we are morally obligated to follow eugenics to produce enhanced children the eugenic implications are much more radical than it is currently seen. He says:
The real danger posed by the development of effective technologies of human enhancement is not that religious conservatives will prevent couples from making use of these technologies, but that parents will eventually have no choice but to make use of them. Without them, their children will stand no chance of competing effectively in the world. (Sparrow 40)

New eugenics programs are presented as liberal by eugenicist like Nick Agar however they overlook the obligation to society.
When these opportunities are presented to parents, most of them would embrace the idea of creating the best babies possible and they would expect from other parents the same. Although Agar denies there will be any moral obligation upon parents these situations might feasibly emerge. Furthermore this pressure may cause only one type of people to be produced because some features can be less often preferred by parents or society like homosexuality. If parents could choose their children’s sexual orientation do you think would they prefer their being homosexual? The common answer is negative; because of that I think new eugenics like the old one would create some obligations, and, moreover the absence of governmental sanction may cause it to get more serious. Agar uses this sentence to distinguish new and old eugenics “Citizens will end up being engineered in accordance with a dominant set of values after all and the new eugenics will collapse into the eugenics of old” (Agar 143). The two types of eugenics might be understood as the same so they are not so different as he
presents.
There also some differences between new eugenics and old coercive eugenics. Firstly new eugenics is defended by its advocates who argue that there is no difference between shaping children’s characteristics by choosing the environment where they are raised and selecting children’s genes. Most liberal see no moral difference between these which they understand manipulating children by changing their environments or their genes. Both action depends on same idea which is parents’ looking to their own values when they shape their children either genetically or socially. Liberal eugenicists are right with this idea that “Parents are already free to improve intelligence and physical prowess by modifying environmental factors such as schooling or diet” (Agar 139). The ways and tools of eugenics may be different however both of them have equally importance. Because of that if there is no limitation on parental choices after birth; there should no limitation before the birth. Because prenatal enhancement is a part of parental discretion such as camps, special tutors. John Robertson asks that “Why should genetic intervention to enhance normal offspring traits be any less legitimate” (Agar 140). What I am trying to say is that parents already have the opportunity to make fundamental changes on their children’s lives. The concerns about liberal eugenics become meaningless in this part of the discussion.
There are many analogies between new and old eugenics. Although the new one is mostly considered liberal, most scientist and writers are skeptical about this because with the pressure of society the new one might turn out to be coercive even if the state would not be involved. It has also unethical approaches and aspects which are inconsistent with human rights and liberalism. In this research paper I tried to compare coercive and liberal eugenics by presenting ideas which belong to both sides. In conclusion I am not satisfied with the idea that “Parents should use available technologies to choose from a very wide range of offspring characteristics” (Agar 137). Because it includes illiberalism for coming generations and it makes more complicated everything than it is today.
WORD COUNT: 2.390

Works Cited

Agar, N. "The Debate Over Liberal Eugenics [2]." Hastings Center Report 36.2 (2006).
B Prusak, Bernard G. "Rethinking "Liberal Eugenics.." Hastings Center Report 35.6 (2005): 31-42. Academic Search Complete.
Fox, Dov. "The Illiberality Of ‘Liberal Eugenics’." Ratio 20.1 (2007): 1-25. Humanities International Complete.
Huxley, Aldous. Brave New World / Aldous Huxley. n.p.: New York : Perennial Classics, 2006
Magnet, Shoshana. "Identity And The New Eugenics In The Newborn Screening Saves Lives Act." Media, Culture & Society 35.1 (2013).
Kevles, Daniel J. "From Eugenics To Patents: Genetics, Law, And Human Rights." Annals Of Human Genetics 75.3 (2011).
Koch, T. "Enhancing Who? Enhancing What? Ethics, Bioethics, And Transhumanism." Journal Of Medicine And Philosophy 35.6 (2010).
Pekalski, A. "Effect Of Eugenics On The Evolution Of Populations." European Physical Journal.
Sparrow, R. "A Not-So-New Eugenics: Harris And Savulescu On Human Enhancement. "Hastings Center Report 41.1 (2011).