We, the inheritors of the post-WWII and post-Civil Rights era, like to believe that eugenics lies with the discredited ideas of pseudosciences such as phrenology and blending inheritance. Julian Huxley may have sounded the last non-fringe “hurrah!” on behalf of the intellectual and scientific supporters of eugenics[i], but the reality is not that simple; although the politically correct mediums of modern academia and popular culture may have purged their halls and airwaves of explicit supporters of state-instituted eugenic practices (though for a recent, well-reasoned exception, see Geoffrey Miller’s response to the Edge question “What should we be worried about?”), these practices lie at the foundation of many of our personal decisions, institutional practices, and government policies. Most biologically-oriented social scientists admit that eugenic self-selection occurs at the individual level—not only in the sperm clinic but also at bars and nightclubs. But even among academics, the acknowledgment of eugenic realities in politics and government is hard to come by. This seems puzzling, as implementations of eugenics are as obvious as the reluctance to notice and—especially—to discuss them. The reason for the existence of such self-imposed ignorance or reticence may be the inability to think about society in biological terms or the implicit assent with the utility of such practices, respectively.
For example, prisons may function as government-sponsored executors of eugenic policies with respect to traits such as criminality, aggression, and exploitation. Other than their behavioristic function of providing positive punishment, prisons may serve the added function of reducing the reproductive output of individuals who threaten the well being of society. Though perhaps unrelated, the separate housing of men and women is certainly in line with the present hypothesis. Indeed, it is usually the most dangerous individuals—that is, murderers, rapists, and child molesters, as opposed to drunk drivers and shoplifters—whose reproductive opportunities are curtailed the most by capital punishment or long and harsh prison sentences (conjugal visits notwithstanding).
As with prisons, the isolation of psychologically-impaired individuals in inpatient facilities and asylums may be another instance of socially-sanctioned and institutionally-implemented eugenics. The high heritability of schizophrenia[ii] and antisocial personality disorder[iii] has inevitably led to the (mostly unconscious) discrimination and curtailment of the reproductive rights of individuals with these and other conditions. Ostensibly, these measures are implemented for the sake of “treatment,” but perhaps the ulterior motive of reproductive curtailment may also be lurking here.
The above-cited instances of unacknowledged, state-instituted eugenics may be representative of other instances wherein individuals and societies are structuring their lives and legal systems with a view of the long-term consequences on reproduction and the behavioral makeup of populations. Although individual instances of imprisonment and institutionalization are rarely about the explicit curtailment of the reproductive potential of individual criminals and mental patients, it is doubtful that these issues are always peripheral—especially when it comes to the explicit policy-making and judicial planning by bureaucrats, judges, and politicians (individuals whose psychological makeup is usually well-suited for conscientious forethought).
One of the distinguishing features of our species is our ability to engage in mental time travel[iv], which is, roughly, the ability to not only think about the present but also the past and the future. Most non-human animals (save, perhaps, for a few anthropoid primates) are unable to willfully reminisce about their past social relationships or plan for their inevitable demise by leaving an inheritance to their kin. Humans, however, do all of these things and can even entertain cross-generational concepts such as being “fruitful and multiplying” or setting up a “Thousand-Year Reich.” A reader’s passing glance at either the Old or the New Testament is sure to land on at least one of the many instances of endlessly repetitive genealogies that pervade these scriptures (“begat” is quite a promiscuous word in the Bible). Perhaps long-term reproductive planning is what distinguishes our species from the rest of the biological world?
In posing this question, I hope to bring the reader into a fuller realization of the extent to which humans already engage in reproductive forethought and the self-direction of our own evolution, albeit at a more or less implicit level. By explicitly acknowledging these practices and ideas, however, perhaps we can have a more honest conversation about our species and its future.
[i] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2982363/pdf/eugenrev00027-0011.pdf
[ii] http://archpsyc.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=482476
[iii] http://psycnet.apa.org/?fa=main.doiLanding&doi=10.1037/0033-2909.128.3.490
[iv] http://www.memorylab.org/Files/Corballis_MTT_BBS_2007.pdf
Comments
Post a Comment