Few ideas in the past 120 years have done more harm to humanity than those of Sir Francis Galton. Galton became the founder eugenics sciences - evolutionary pseudoscience, which is based on the theory of the survival of the fittest individuals. Ethnic cleansing, abortions in order to get rid of defective offspring, murder of newborns, euthanasia, and selection of unborn children for scientific research have become a consequence of eugenics as a science today. So who is Galton? What is eugenics science, and what harm from it to humanity?
Francis Galton - Founder of the Science of Eugenics
Darwin's photographs courtesy of TFE Graphics, Hitler and Galton Wikipedia.org.
Francis Galton (pictured above right) was born in 1822 in Birmingham to a Quaker family. He was the maternal grandson of Erasmus Darwin and thus the cousin of Charles Darwin (pictured above left). For almost his entire adult life, Galton was as agnostic and an opponent of Christianity as Darwin.
By the age of one and a half he already knew the alphabet, at two he could read, at five he recited poetry by heart, and at six he discussed the Iliad. In 1840, Galton began to study medicine at the University of Cambridge, and then mathematics. However, due to a nervous breakdown, he was content with a modest bachelor's degree, which he received in January 1844. In the same year, his father died, and Galton inherited such a fortune that until the end of his life he did not work and did not need funds.
Wealth gives young Galton free time, as well as the opportunity for "entertainment" and amateur pursuits in various sciences. In particular, he takes a trip to southwest Africa, exploring large areas. For these studies, in 1853 he was awarded membership in the Royal Geographical Society, and after another 3 years - in the Royal Scientific Society. In the same 1853, Galton married Louise Butler, daughter of the headmaster of Harrow's school.
Galton, as an amateur scientist, was distinguished by boundless curiosity and inexhaustible energy. He wrote 14 books and over 200 articles. Among his inventions are a "silent" whistle for calling dogs, a printer for a teletype, as well as various tools and techniques for measuring intelligence and parts of the human body. In addition, he invented the synoptic map and was the first to scientifically describe the phenomenon of anticyclones.
Relationship with Charles Darwin
The publication of Darwin's The Origin of Species in 1859 undoubtedly marked a turning point in Galton's life. In 1869 he wrote to Darwin: “The appearance of your“ Origin of Species ”has brought about a real turning point in my life; Your book freed me from the shackles of old prejudices [i.e. that is, from religious views based on evidence of intelligent design], as from a nightmare, and I first found freedom of thought. ".
From Knott D.K. and Gliddon D.R. The indigenous races of the Earth, D.B. Libbincott, Philadelphia, USA, 1868
Galton "Was one of the first to realize the significance of Darwinian theory for humanity" ... He believed that a person inherits from his ancestors character, talents, intelligence, as well as a lack of these qualities. According to this view, the poor are not unfortunate victims of circumstance; they became poor because they are at a lower stage of biological development. This contradicted the prevailing opinion in scientific circles that all such qualities of a person depend on his environment - on where and how he was brought up.
Galton believed that people, like animals, can and should be bredseeking to improve the breed. In 1883 he coined the word "eugenics" (from the Greek "eu" "good" + "genes" - "born"), which he christened the science of Eugenics, which studies ways to improve the physical and intellectual qualities of a person.
Galton's views left no room for the existence of the human soul, God's grace in the human heart, the right to be different from others, and even human dignity. In his first article on this subject, Eugenics as a Science, published in 1865, he denied that man's mental faculties were bestowed upon him by God; denied that humanity has been cursed since the fall of Adam and Eve; viewed religious feelings as "Nothing more than evolutionary adaptations that ensure the survival of man as a biological species".
A pseudo-scientific illustration of the so-called evolution of human "races".
This illustration shows, by offering to consider the similarities to chimpanzees, that black races have evolved less successfully than whites.
Even the famous evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould noticed that in this picture the chimpanzee's skull is deliberately enlarged, and the jaw of the "negro" is too extended forward to show that the "negros" occupy an even lower place than the monkeys. This illustration was not taken from racist literature, but from a leading textbook of the time. Ardent evolutionists today try to avoid social connotations in their ideas, but history shows the opposite.
Galton wrote the following about the meaning of original sin: “According to my theory, [this] shows that man was not at a higher level of development, and then descended, but, on the contrary, quickly rose from a lower level ... and only recently, after tens of thousands of years of barbarism, mankind became civilized and religious ".
In the book "Hereditary genius" ( Hereditary Genius 1869) Galton develops all these ideas of the science of eugenics and suggests that the system of marriages of convenience between men of aristocratic descent and rich women will eventually "bring out" a people whose representatives will be more talented than ordinary people. When Charles Darwin read this book, he wrote to Galton: “In some respects you have converted her zealous adversary to your faith, for I have always maintained that, with the exception of complete fools, people are not very different from one another intellectually; they are distinguished only by diligence and hard work ... " Galton's ideas of the science of eugenics undoubtedly helped Darwin to extend his evolutionary theory to humanity. He does not mention Galton in The Origin of Species, but does refer to him at least 11 times in The Descent of Man, 1871.
In the first half of the 20th century, there were three International Congresses on Eugenics as a Science - in 1912, 1921 and 1932. They were attended by leading experts in the science of eugenics from the UK, USA, Germany, France, Australia, Canada, India, Japan, Kenya, Mauritius and South Africa. Celebrities who held eugenetic views before World War II include Winston Churchill, economist John Maynard Keynes, science fiction writer Herbert Wells, and US presidents Theodore Roosevelt and Calvin Coolidge.
In 1901, Galton was awarded the Huxley Medal from the Institute of Anthropology, in 1902 he received the Darwin Medal from the Royal Scientific Society, in 1908 he received the Darwin-Wallace Medal from the Linnaean Society, and he was awarded honorary degrees from Cambridge and Oxford Universities; in 1909 he was knighted. Despite these "honors", Galton in life was not the best example of the truth of his own judgments. He was haunted by prolonged bouts of illness, and a good intellectual pedigree was not enough for him and his wife to give birth to their own children, who would inherit his name and qualities. Galton died in 1911, and according to his will, his funds went to the maintenance of the Department of Eugenics Science and the Galton Eugenetic Laboratory at the University of London.
Eugenics as science in action
Based on materials from Wikipedia.org
The idea of \u200b\u200bimproving the physical and intellectual qualities of humanity as a whole may seem delightful at first glance. However, ways to achieve this goal in the recent past have included not only increasing the birth rate of decent offspring from carefully selected parents ("positive eugenics science"), but also reducing the birth rate of people "least fit" who, according to the theorists of eugenics science, can harm the improvement of mankind ("negative science of eugenics"). For example, by 1913, one-third of US states (and most of all states since the 1920s) had enacted laws to force sterilize prisoners who would be deemed "least fit" by officials. As a result, about 70,000 people became victims of forced sterilization: criminals, mentally retarded, drug addicts, beggars, blind, deaf, as well as patients with epilepsy, tuberculosis and syphilis. In Lynchburg, Virginia alone, over 800 people were subjected to this procedure, and sporadic cases of sterilization continued until the 1970s. ,
In Germany, the Hitler government issued a decree in 1933 on the forced sterilization of not only prisoners and hospital patients, but all German citizens with "undesirable" characteristics. So he wanted to protect the "higher Aryan race" from "pollution" due to mixed marriages.
Subsequently, surgical intervention was superseded by a more radical solution to the problem of "useless mouths" - outright genocide. Between 1938 and 1945, Nazi assassins killed over 11 million people who were considered inferior people unworthy of life, as evidenced in the documents and protocols of the Nuremberg Trials. The victims were Jews, Protestants, Blacks, Gypsies, Communists, the mentally ill and amputees.
It was nothing more than outrageous Darwinism: the extermination of millions of people branded as "unfit and inferior" by those and for the glory of those who considered themselves "superior and adapted."
The core idea of \u200b\u200bDarwinism is selection. The Nazis believed they should manage the selection process to perfect the Aryan race. Galton's naive concept of "eugenic utopia" was reborn into the nightmare of Nazi massacres and ethnic cleansing.
Unfortunately, ideas of racial superiority and the science of eugenics did not die with the fall of Hitler's regime. The writings of eugenics as a science by Galton, HG Wells, Sir Arthur Keith and others, as well as the early work of modern sociobiologists such as E.O. Wilson of Harvard, laid the foundation for the notorious anti-black and Jewish American racist David Duke's views.
Eugenics Science in the 21st Century
After World War II, the word "eugenics" became a dirty word. Now adherents of the science of eugenics began to call themselves specialists in "population biology", "human genetics", "racial politics", etc. The journals were also renamed. The Annals of Eugenics became the Annals of Human Genetics, and the Eugenics quarterly became the Bulletin of Sociobiology. But today, more than sixty years after the Holocaust, the deadly ideas spawned by Galton's eugenics as a science are alive and well again, covered in the lab coat of medical respectability.
Today, doctors routinely kill people created in the image of God (Genesis 1:26) through abortion, euthanasia, the murder of newborn babies, and in the process of researching embryonic stem cells.
A. Abortion - a legacy of the science of eugenics
According to the British newspaper Daily Mail, “women are increasingly destroying their own unborn children because of injuries that do not threaten their lives, such as deformed feet or cleft palates,” and “children with Down syndrome are now more often killed than they can afford. be born. " Dr. Jacqueline Lang of London Metropolitan University stated on this occasion: “These figures are very characteristic of the eugenetic tendencies of the consumer society - to get rid of anomalies at any cost". According to Nuala Scarisbrick, UK Life Insurance Specialist, “This is outright eugenics. Inadequate people are actually hinted that they shouldn't have been born. It's scary and disgusting". Scientists estimate that 50 million abortions occur worldwide every year. This is one abortion for every three births. Thus, every child in the womb has, on average, one in four chances of being deliberately killed.
B. Newborn Murders - Eugenics Science Is To Blame
China is known for its forced demographic policy - no more than one child per family. In practice, most families want a boy, so if a girl is born, her life is in danger. Sometimes this sinister principle is adhered to even before the birth of a child. In India, it is customary to find out the sex of the unborn child, and the vast majority of abortions occur in girls. In light of these facts, feminist support for abortion looks depressingly paradoxical.
Defective babies are also in danger. Ethicist Peter Singer advocates legalizing the killing of children under a certain age. He's writing: “Killing an inferior infant is ethically not tantamount to killing a person. Very often there is nothing wrong with that ".
C. Euthanasia - a consequence of Eugenics as a science
In May 2001, Holland became the first country to legalize euthanasia; the law came into force in January 2002. In Belgium, euthanasia was allowed until May 2002, and then legalized. It is allowed in Switzerland, Norway and Colombia.
Eugenics as a Science - Conclusion
Of course, not all evolutionists are murderers, and Francis Galton may not have imagined that his theories would lead to the killing of so many millions of people, let alone the killing of defenseless babies in the womb. However, such actions are entirely consistent with evolutionary doctrine - in particular, with the idea of \u200b\u200bthe survival of the fittest as a result of their destruction of the weakest. Actions are a consequence of beliefs. Jesus said: "A thin tree bears bad fruit, it cannot ... bear good fruit" (Matthew 7: 17-18).
Contrary to the deadly philosophy of the science of eugenics, for God every person is of eternal value; each was created “in the image of God” (Genesis 1: 26-27). In addition, God explicitly prohibits murder (Exodus 20:13) and the knowingly killing of innocent people. In fact, God loves humanity so much that He sent His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, to die on the cross to save our souls from sin (John 3: 16-17) and transform us by making us “like the image of His Son” when we let us believe in Him (Romans 8:29; 2 Corinthians 3:18). The second hypostasis of the Trinity took on a human nature in Jesus (Hebrews 2:14) and became the last Adam (1 Corinthians 15:45), thus becoming the (blood) Redeemer (Isaiah 59:20) of mankind descended from the first Adam.
1
And the Darwinists of the time insisted on Scopes' right to teach from such a textbook!
Links and Notes:
Perhaps the most frequently asked eugenics-based Holocaust genocide question is, "How could this have happened?" In 1961 MGM's 1961 film The Nuremberg Trial, about the trial of four Nazi war criminals, one of the accused calls out to Chief Justice Dan Heywood (played by Spencer Tracy): “These people are millions of people — I couldn't have known what comes to this! You have to believe me! " Haywood's answer was eloquent: "It came to this when you first sentenced a person to death, knowing that he was innocent."
Likewise, today's killing of innocent unborn children because eugenicists consider them less perfect than others began the first time a physician agreed to kill a crippled child in womb. The rest is history.
1. Based on the third Nuremberg Trials. There were 13 of them in total.
Links and Notes:
- Cowan, R., Sir Francis Galton and the study of heredity in the nineteenth century, Garland Publishing Inc., New York, USA, p. vi, 1985.
Eugenics (from the Greek ευγενες - "good kind", "thoroughbred") - the doctrine of artificial selection in relation to a person, as well as ways to improve his hereditary properties. The doctrine is designed to combat the phenomena of degeneration in the human gene pool.
Eugenics was widely popular in the early decades of the 20th century, but later became associated with Nazi Germany, as a result of which its reputation suffered significantly. In the post-war period, eugenics came to be on a par with Nazi crimes such as racial hygiene, human experimentation, and the extermination of "unwanted" social groups. However, by the end of the 20th century, the development of genetics and reproductive technologies again raised the question of the meaning of eugenics and its ethical and moral status in the modern era.
In modern science, many problems of eugenics, especially the fight against hereditary diseases, are solved within the framework of human genetics.
Types of eugenics
Distinguish between "positive" and "negative" eugenics.
The goal of positive eugenics is to promote the reproduction of people with traits that are considered valuable to society (absence of hereditary diseases, good physical development, sometimes high intelligence).
The goal of negative eugenics is to stop the reproduction of persons with hereditary defects, or those who in a given society are considered physically or mentally disabled.
The Russian Eugenics Society, created in 1920, rejected negative eugenics and began to deal with the problems of positive eugenics.
The line between negative and positive eugenics is arbitrary.
Major world religions now condemn eugenics in general.
However, at the state level, eugenics is actually used, sometimes quite noticeably. So, in China, India, fetal sex diagnosis is widely practiced and girls are often aborted. For example, according to Indian-Canadian studies, annually with the connivance of the authorities in India, about half a million abortions (500 thousand) of female fetuses are performed. “There are 927 girls in this country for every 1000 boys under the age of 6. In the world this ratio averages 1,050 girls to 1,000 boys. " Thus, the natural ratio of boys and girls is disrupted, which leads to negative consequences for society.
In fact, negative eugenics can be called any serial and / or massive forcible elimination from the human population of those who in a given society are perceived, for one reason or another, as undesirable.
Historical aspect
Ancient world
The basics of selection have been known to pastoralist peoples since ancient times.
In Sparta, children who were recognized as inferior (such a decision was made by the elders) according to one criterion or another, were thrown into the abyss alive (although the Greek professor Theodoros Pitsios disputed this in 2007, based on the results of his archaeological research).
Plato wrote that one should not raise children with defects, or those born of defective parents. Inadequate people, as well as victims of their own vices, should be denied medical assistance, and "moral degenerates" should be executed. On the other hand, an ideal society, according to Plato, is obliged to encourage temporary unions of selected men and women so that they leave high-quality offspring.
Among the peoples of the Far North, the practice of killing physically disabled newborns, as physically incapable of surviving in the harsh conditions of the tundra, was widespread.
The birth of the concept of "eugenics"
The basic principles of eugenics were formulated by the English psychologist Francis Galton in late 1883. He suggested studying phenomena that can improve the hereditary qualities of future generations (giftedness, mental ability, health). The first sketches of the theory were presented by him in 1865 in the article "Hereditary Talent and Character", developed in more detail in the book "Inheritance of Talent" (Hereditary Genius, 1869).
In 1883, Galton introduced the concept of eugenics to denote scientific and practical activities for the development of improved varieties of cultivated plants and breeds of domestic animals, as well as for the protection and improvement of human heredity.
Galton was a racist and viewed Africans as inferior. In his book Tropical South Africa, he wrote: “These savages are asking for slavery. They, generally speaking, lack independence, they follow their master like a spaniel. "
The weak nations of the world must inevitably give way to more noble varieties of humanity ....
Galton
He also believed that the poor and the sick were unworthy to have offspring.
In the same period, the main ideas of social Darwinism were formed, which had a strong influence on the mentality of philosophers of that time. F. Galton coined the term "eugenics" in 1883, in his book "Inquiries into Human Faculty and Its Development". In 1904, Galton defined eugenics as "the science that deals with all the factors that improve the innate qualities of a race."
Kellikott later defined eugenics as "the social management of human evolution."
XX century
Eugenics theories have become widespread in scientific circles of different countries, and in some - eugenics has established itself at the state level: and their governments began to use it to "improve human qualities." There, those who are recognized as harmful to society (vagrants, alcoholics, "sexual perverts") are subject to mandatory sterilization.
Similar programs were carried out in 1920-1950. and in a number of US states.
At the International Congress on Eugenics, which was held in New York in 1932, one of the eugenics scholars bluntly stated the following:
“There is no doubt that if sterilization laws were more enforced in the United States, we would have eliminated at least 90% of crime, insanity, dementia, idiocy, and sexual perversion in less than a hundred years, not to mention many other forms of defectiveness and degeneration. Thus, within a century, our insane asylums, prisons and psychiatric clinics would be almost cleared of their victims of human misery and suffering. "
In some states of the United States, for sex offenders, the option to replace life imprisonment with voluntary castration is still provided.
In this case, castration plays both a punitive and a preventive role.
In Europe, such castration was first carried out in 1925 in Denmark, by a court decision.
From 1934 to 1976 a program of forced sterilization of the "inferior" was carried out in Sweden.
Similar laws were in force in Norway and Finland, as well as Estonia and Switzerland.
In Nazi Germany (1933-1945), all “inferior persons” were subject to forced sterilization: Jews, gypsies, freaks, mentally ill, homosexuals, communists, etc. Then a decision was made about the greater suitability of their physical destruction.
Nazi eugenic programs were first carried out within the framework of the state program “to prevent the degeneration of the German people as a representative of the Aryan race”, and later on in the occupied territories of other countries within the framework of the Nazi “racial policy”:
The T-4 euthanasia program is the destruction of mental patients, and in general patients for more than 5 years, as disabled.
Destruction of homosexuals
Lebensborn - Conception and upbringing of children in orphanages from SS employees who have passed racial selection, that is, they do not contain "impurities" of Jewish and non-Aryan blood in general from their ancestors.
"Final solution to the Jewish question" (complete destruction)
Plan "Ost" - The capture of the eastern territories and the "reduction" of the local population, as belonging to the lowest race.
Eugenics and modernity
According to geneticist S.M. Gershenzon, due to the rapid development of genetics in general and genomics in particular, eugenics as an independent science has lost its meaning.
“Now eugenics is a past, and a very tarnished one. And the goals set before eugenics by its founders and not achieved by it have passed completely into the jurisdiction of medical genetics, which is rapidly and successfully moving forward. "
Discussion around eugenics
Pros
In developed countries, in practice, the so-called. genetic load. Incl. this is the result of the preservation of unviable individuals (for example, when pregnant women are transferred to the “preservation.” In the natural process of pregnancy, some of the mutational disorders that have arisen are eliminated due to miscarriages; that very natural rejection).
The second reason for the growth of the genetic load is the development of medicine, which allows people with significant congenital genetic abnormalities or diseases to reach reproductive age. These diseases have previously been an obstacle to the transmission of defective genetic material to future generations. Due to these factors, the concept of eugenics in relation to humans is more relevant today than it was 100 years ago.
A way to reduce the genetic burden, in addition to abortion based on the results of tests, including amniotic fluid, is preventive parental counseling in medical genetic centers.
Eugenic principles today are partially implemented in recommendations for a desired / unwanted pregnancy - so far, such assessments are carried out on the basis of a survey and / or biotesting of only a small category of persons included in the so-called. "Risk group". Social compensation for persons who have no chance of giving birth to their own healthy offspring are methods of artificial insemination, as well as the institution of adoption.
Cons
The scientific reputation of eugenics was shaken in the 1930s when eugenic rhetoric was used to justify the racial policies of the Third Reich. In the postwar period, the scientific community and the general public associated eugenics with the crimes of Nazi Germany. Konrad Lorenz, as a proponent of "practical" eugenics in Nazi Germany, was "persona non grata" in many countries after World War II. However, there were a number of regional and national governments that supported eugenic programs until the 1970s.
Prenatal diagnosis
Prenatal diagnostics can establish the presence of a wide range of hereditary diseases or chromosomal aberrations in the developing fetus and can contribute to negative eugenics if the parents, based on the results of the diagnosis, decide to terminate the pregnancy.
Currently, in a number of countries, prenatal (i.e. prenatal) diagnostics of an embryo that has developed as a result of artificial insemination (with a number of cells of about 10) is already available. The presence of markers of about 6000 hereditary diseases is determined, after which the question of the expediency of implanting the embryo into the uterus is decided. This allows couples who previously took risks due to the high risk of hereditary diseases to have their own child. On the other hand, some experts believe that the practice of interfering with the natural diversity of genes carries certain hidden risks. However, these methods are not designed to improve a person's gene pool, but to help individual couples fulfill their desire for a child.
Opportunities of modern science to improve the human gene pool
Currently, a new direction in medicine is rapidly developing - gene therapy, within which, as it is assumed, methods of treating most hereditary diseases will be found. However, at present in all countries there is a ban on the introduction of genetic changes into the cells of the germ line (sex cells and their precursors). If this prohibition is lifted in the future, the relevance of screening out “defective” members of society (that is, the relevance of negative eugenics) will significantly decrease or disappear completely.
In addition, effective methods are being developed not only to correct, but also to scientifically improve the genome of various organisms. When humanity has the opportunity to purposefully change any given genome, positive eugenics as a practice that promotes the reproduction of people with a certain genotype will completely lose its meaning.
The possibilities of this direction are indicated by the results of recent experiments on improving the genome of mice:
Significant improvement in some types of memory
improving color vision
significant extension of the period of active youth
increased tissue regeneration
increase in physical strength and endurance
reducing the risk of cancer
reducing the risk of obesity
Convention on Biomedicine and Human Rights
The member states of the Council of Europe and other countries (and this is the majority of developed countries and not only developed ones), supporting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, the Convention for the Protection of Fundamental Human Rights and Freedoms of 1950, signed the 2005 Convention on Biomedicine and Human Rights.
Article 11 (Prohibition of Discrimination) of the Convention states: Any form of discrimination based on the genetic heritage of a person is prohibited.
Article 13 (Interventions in the human genome) states: Interventions in the human genome aimed at modifying it may be carried out only for preventive, therapeutic or diagnostic purposes and only on condition that such intervention is not aimed at altering the genome of the heirs of the given person.
Article 18 (In vitro research on embryos) states:
Where the law permits in vitro research on embryos, the law should provide for adequate protection of embryos.
The creation of human embryos for research purposes is prohibited.
Existing international documents on this topic:
Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights, UNESCO, 1997
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Dignity of the Human Being with regard to the Application of Biology and Medicine: Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine (Council of Europe, 1997) and its additional protocols: on the prohibition of human cloning, on transplantation and biomedical research.
Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights, UNESCO, 2005
Declaration on Human Cloning, UN, 2005
Declaration of Helsinki by the World Medical Association (1964, last revised in 2000) "Ethical Principles for Scientific Medical Research with Human Participation."
In addition, within the European Union, eugenics is prohibited under the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, (Nice, December 7, 2000). Art. 3 of the Charter provides for "the prohibition of eugenic practices, primarily those aimed at human selection."
greek eugenes - thoroughbred). The system of views on the possibility of improving the hereditary qualities of a person through selection and control over the transmission of hereditary factors. For a long time, Egypt was the arena for the activities of obscurantists and reactionaries, who covered up the genocide (mass extermination of representatives of other races and the sick in Nazi Germany) with pseudoscientific formulations. It is possible, however, and humane, progressive application of the ideas of E. In particular, the positive role of medical genetics and genetic counseling is indisputable.
Eugenics
Selective breeding program to "improve" human ability through careful selection and transfer of hereditary characteristics. The idea of \u200b\u200beugenics has been recognized as impractical, immoral and generally outdated.
EUGENICS
eugenics) is the science of improving the human race based on the principles of genetics. The main object of all study is the definition and, if possible, elimination of hereditary human diseases.
EUGENICS
Study of patterns of human inheritance with the aim of improving the species through selective breeding. Positive eugenics focuses on rewarding individuals with "desirable" traits to procreate, while negative eugenics focuses on discouraging individuals with "undesirable" traits (often using unethical procedures such as forced sterilization). Unfortunately (or should we say: fortunately), no agreement was reached on what characteristics it would be desirable to perpetuate. Since the founding of this discipline by Francis Galton in the 19th century, eugenicists have been unable to free themselves from their own ethnocentrism.
Eugenics
from the Greek. eugenes - of a good kind) - the doctrine of hereditary human health and ways to improve it. The principles of E. were first formulated by F. Galton in 1869 in his book "Heredity of Talent". The term itself was proposed by him in 1883. Interest in eugenic ideas was especially significant in the first quarter of the 20th century. Progressive scientists (F. Galton, G. Meller, N.K. Koltsov, Yu.A. Filipchenko) set humane goals for E., first of all, to study the hereditary qualities of a person and create conditions for increasing the birth rate of people with favorable hereditary inclinations. This direction of E. was called positive. However, eugenic ideas were also used for other purposes - limiting the birth rate of people with mental illness, persons prone to alcoholism, criminality, etc. For these purposes, laws on forced sterilization and restriction of immigration (negative eugenics) were passed in a number of countries in Europe and America. The ideas of negative E. were used to justify discrimination and racism (for example, in fascist Germany), which discredited E. as a scientific discipline and led to the rejection of the use of the term "E." In modern science, many problems of positive E. are solved within the framework of human genetics and medical genetics.
Eugenics
The doctrine of the hereditary preconditions of individual human development, the conditions and patterns of inheritance of giftedness and talent (F. Galton). In fact, it is a reflection of the solution to the age-old question of the role of the environment and heredity in the development of genius and talent towards the prevalence of the latter. With the help of E. racists try to substantiate the pattern of racial and national inequality from a biological standpoint.
Eugenics
greek eugenes - pedigree) - F. Galton's theory (1870) about the possibility of improving the human species by selective reproduction methods (for example, sterilization, obstacles to childbirth by persons with signs of degeneration, artificial marriages, etc.). Positive eugenics focuses on encouraging procreation by individuals with desirable, adaptive traits, while negative eugenics focuses on preventing children from parents with undesirable traits or inherited disease traits. In the United States, from 1905 to 1980, twenty states passed laws prohibiting persons with mental disabilities, epilepsy, and criminal tendencies from having children, and about 8,000 people were sterilized. The generally humane goals of eugenics have been thoroughly discredited by people with very specific views on what a person should be and what there should be ways to improve his nature. Thus, the straightforward Nazi Nazis created a special breeding institute for the "Aryans" at one time, but the experience of its activity turned out to be completely disappointing: thoroughbred males and selected females after mating produced, contrary to expectations, skinny and sickly offspring. At present, in connection with the amazing achievements of genetics, more advanced technologies have appeared, for example, genetic engineering, cloning, but very complex problems, including ethical ones, stand in the way of their practical use, excluding "social terror".
Eugenics
from the Greek. eugenes - pedigree) - 1) selection of racial characteristics based on ideology (where one human race with special phenotypic and general characteristics is proclaimed above all others), which does not recognize either the principle of equality or the principle of personalism. In history, E. served as an ideological basis for violence against certain minorities; now it is practically used in some artificial insemination technologies and when recommending an abortion if human embryos do not meet acceptable "general conditions";
2) an influential scientific direction of the first half of the 20th century, within the framework of which the task of improving the hereditary characteristics of the human population (physical and intellectual) was posed. E.'s methods were aimed at stopping the genetic degeneration of mankind, associated with the development of medicine and social support of individuals, as a result of which natural selection weakened. Within the framework of negative E., the idea of \u200b\u200bdepriving disabled citizens (alcoholics, drug addicts, criminals, etc.) of the possibility of procreation and the inheritance of "unworthy" genes is defended. Within the framework of positive ecology, the task is set to provide benefits for the reproduction of the most gifted (physically and intellectually) people. In recent decades, E. began to develop again in connection with the rapid progress of molecular genetics, cloning, and other biomedical research, requiring that ethical and sociocultural factors of interference in hereditary programs be taken into account, and their regulation and control proceeding from the benefit of the human population.
Test
Eugenics as a science
Introduction
Humanity has always strived to become better. Every small step a person takes is aimed at becoming faster, taller, stronger, smarter, healthier, richer, more beautiful, etc. It's a natural desire to want to be the best version of yourself. This desire was transformed into theory and founded such a doctrine as eugenics.
Eugenics refers to the artificial improvement of breeds and species, including the human species. In the scientific sense, this is the social management of human evolution. This practice is believed to be scientifically incorrect and socially harmful.
Now eugenics is a past, and a very tarnished one. And the goals set for eugenics by its founders and not achieved by it have passed completely into the jurisdiction of medical genetics, which is rapidly and successfully moving forward.
In recent decades, many of the basic premises of eugenics have been scientifically discredited, and the eugenic movement has lost its influence (although it has some adherents). At the same time, thanks to modern advances in life sciences and technology, some of the goals of eugenics have been partially achieved.
In this work, we will reveal the concept of eugenics, the basic principles and types of this teaching. We will find out how this idea developed, what forms it took and in what form it reached us.
1.The concept and essence of eugenics
Eugenics (from the Greek "eugenes" - good kind) - the doctrine of the prevention of possible deterioration of hereditary qualities of a person, and in the future - about the conditions and methods of influencing the improvement of these qualities.
The term "eugenics" was first proposed by the English biologist F. Galton in the book "The inheritance of talent, its laws and consequences" (1969). Despite the fact that progressive scientists set humane goals for eugenics, it was often used as a cover for reactionaries and racists, who, based on false ideas about the inferiority of individual races, peoples and social groups. They, relying on nationalist and class prejudices, justified racial, national and class discrimination.
There are intense ideological controversies around eugenics. Some scholars believe that the very concept of "eugenics" is incompatible with the scientific worldview. Others believe that the content of eugenics, its objectives and the most reasonable means of achieving them will go to human genetics, anthropogenetics and medical genetics.
The sciences studying heredity and variability of the traits of the human body have shown that the diversity of people is associated both with their hereditary inclinations and with the conditions of existence (climatic, socio-economic, cultural, etc.). the study of identical twins, in particular of their mental development, as well as genealogical observations indicate that heredity plays a large, but by no means exclusive role in determining the mental, including mental, abilities of a person. If its morphological features are determined mainly by heredity, then its mental characteristics and behavior are also strongly influenced by the environment and social conditions: upbringing, education, labor activity, the impact of the collective, society, etc.
Much can be done in this direction by medical genetics, whose tasks include both the study of the action of mutagens - chemical, radiation and other environmental factors that damage hereditary structures in human germ cells, and prevention (including by improving the environment ) harmful mutations that threaten the health of future generations. Marriages between relatives are especially conducive to the manifestation of harmful mutations. at the same time, the probability of receiving from both parents a usually suppressed (recessive) harmful trait sharply increases. This explains the fact that in isolated human groups (isolates), where, as a rule, closely related marriages occur more often, the percentage of hereditary diseases and deformities increases. The harmful consequences of closely related marriages were noticed in antiquity, which led to their condemnation, prohibition by customs, and later legal. Medical genetic consultations are used to prevent the spread of harmful mutations and their combinations by limiting the marriage between carriers of such mutations, the purpose of which is to provide for the possibility of manifesting harmful heredity in the offspring of people entering into marriage. Sufficiently accurate predictions in this sense can already be made for many hereditary diseases, for example, hemophilia, color blindness, etc. These are precautionary (preventive) methods that prevent the deterioration of the hereditary qualities of a person. At a higher level of development of science, in the future, the possibility of using a reasonable, morally and socially justified impact on the human race is not excluded. Highly gifted people constitute the invaluable wealth of society, one of the conditions for its progress, and the question of the possibilities of revealing them, the conditions of upbringing and education cannot but attract the attention of scientists. All this requires further in-depth research in human genetics with an ever wider application of the methods and achievements of molecular genetics.
History of eugenics
All people are imperfect. Already at an early age, one can notice that some children are gifted with health, but are weak in intellect, others cannot boast of physical beauty and strength, but are ahead of their peers in mental development. Therefore, when a person meets who combines beauty, strength, intellect, and morality, he seems to be some kind of miracle of nature. Such people evoke different feelings among those around them - some have admiration, some have envy. But scientists many years ago began to think about how, for what reasons, such rare, comprehensively gifted people are born. And is it possible to make it so that there are more and more of them in human society?
The first to ask himself this question was Francis Galton, a cousin of Charles Darwin. An aristocrat by birth, Galton began to study the pedigrees of the illustrious aristocratic families of England. His task was to establish the laws of inheritance of talent, intellectual giftedness, physical perfection. Galton believed that if selection of the best breeding animals is necessary to obtain a new breed, then the same results can be achieved by targeted selection of married couples. The best should choose the best, so that healthy, beautiful, gifted children will be born as a result. Galton proposed to create special conditions for the "reproduction of genes" of outstanding people from aristocratic families. This is the beginning of eugenics.
Independently of Galton in Russia, doctor V.M. Florinsky came to the same idea - humanity should improve its "breed", gradually become more intelligent, beautiful, talented. In 1866 Florinsky published the work "Improvement and Degeneration of the Human Race", in which he substantiated his opinion.
However, what Galton and Florinsky dreamed of was just the front of the medal. There is also a downside that played, perhaps, a major role in the fate of eugenics.
Any breeder knows that in order to create a new breed with improved properties, approximately 95 percent of the animals must be culled. The worst should not participate in reproduction - this is the principle of any selection. And this is where eugenics is directly confronted with insoluble problems that lie in the field of human ethics and morality.
What Galton proposed to improve the human race later became known as positive eugenics. But very soon another trend was formed - negative eugenics. Its adherents believed that it was necessary to prevent the appearance of children among people with mental and physical disabilities, among alcoholics, drug addicts, and criminals. Negative eugenics drew criticism from the outset. After all, this kind of "selection" was carried out even in ancient Sparta, where weak and sick children were exterminated. The result is known - Sparta did not produce a single outstanding thinker, artist, artist, but became famous for its strong and brave warriors.
History knows many examples when great people had physical disabilities or suffered from severe hereditary diseases, including mental ones.
Moreover, it is known that some mental illnesses, the development of which is associated with a delicate, vulnerable mental organization, are genetically associated with giftedness in music, mathematics, and poetry.
The inheritance of this or that trait leading to the development of a disease is still a probabilistic process, and it cannot be predicted. For example, a child can "receive" a gene for vascular pathology from a sick father, or maybe from a healthy mother. Conversely, parents can be perfectly healthy, but have genes that determine the development of the disease - they have these genes in a latent, or, as geneticists say, in a recessive state. Whether these genes will manifest in their offspring or not is a matter of chance. It all depends on the possible combinations of genes, their interaction with each other and, of course, on social conditions, upbringing, psychological environment, to some extent on luck.
Scientists' objections to negative eugenics did not convince supporters. They were not stopped by another question, already from the field of morality: who are the judges? Indeed, who should decide that one deviation from the norm is unacceptable and another is entirely acceptable for the future?
However, in 1915-1916, 25 American states passed laws on forced sterilization of the mentally ill, criminals, and drug addicts. Similar laws existed in the Scandinavian countries and in Estonia. Negative eugenics reached its apogee in Nazi Germany. In 1933, for example, 56,244 mentally ill people were sterilized in Germany. The Nazis believed that a core of "high-grade" personalities should be formed within humanity, who would take part in the formation of the future human race. All others - weak, sick, crippled, simply not meeting the standard - must either be destroyed or sterilized. What came out of this theory in practice is well known to everyone.
In some countries, however, eugenics took a different path. In England, a number of measures have been taken to encourage large families among people of the Anglo-Saxon race and create favorable conditions for the upbringing and development of gifted children.
In the Soviet Union in 1920-1921, the Russian Eugenic Society was created. The Society issued a special edition on eugenics - "Russian Eugenic Journal". Prominent genetic scientists of that time - N.K. Koltsov, A.S. Serebrovsky, A.I. Filipchenko. In the magazine, one could find research on the genealogies of famous noble families, for example, the Aksakovs, Turgenevs. Many articles actually laid the foundations of human genetics and medical genetics in our country.
However, the contradictions of eugenics soon began to emerge, which, apparently, are inseparable from it. N.K. Koltsov, for example, believed that eugenics is a utopia, but it will be "the religion of the century to come." A.S. Serebrovsky proposed to separate childbearing from love, to practice artificial insemination to improve the human race. These ideas of scientists drew sharp criticism, and in 1929 the Russian Eugenic Society ceased to exist, and the "Russian Eugenic Journal" ceased to be published.
In the postwar years, interest in eugenics declined, but at the end of the twentieth century, it began to revive again.
3 types of eugenics
Distinguish between positive and negative eugenics.
The goal of positive eugenics is to promote the reproduction of people with traits that are considered valuable to society (absence of hereditary diseases, good physical development, sometimes high intelligence).
The goal of negative eugenics is to stop the reproduction of persons with hereditary defects, or those who in a given society are considered physically or mentally disabled.
The Russian Eugenics Society, founded in 1920, rejected negative eugenics and began to deal with the problems of positive eugenics.
The line between negative and positive eugenics is arbitrary, and the major world religions currently reject both types of eugenics. In China, India, fetal sex diagnostics is widely practiced and girls are often aborted. For example, according to Indian-Canadian studies, approximately 500,000 unborn girls are aborted in India every year. “There are 927 girls in this country for every 1000 boys under the age of 6. In the world this ratio averages 1,050 girls to 1,000 boys. " Thus, the natural ratio of boys and girls is disrupted, which leads to negative consequences for society. Rather, it can be called negative eugenics - the artificial elimination from the population of people who in this society are perceived as undesirable.
4. Problems of eugenics
What is the nature of heredity that eugenics seeks to change? How successful and in what ways can it be changed? What goals should eugenics focus on?
We know that in the beginning each individual is a fertilized egg, during the development of which, in addition to individual characteristics, signs are formed that are common to all members of a given species, race and family. Thus, a fertilized egg has the potential and ability to develop in a specific direction, but within the constraints of the environment. This means that we must understand, firstly, the mechanism of heredity (that is, in what way a fertilized egg realizes its capabilities) and, secondly, the relative influence of heredity and the environment on the formation of individual traits.
When it comes to heredity, genetics teaches us that heredity is determined by genes. These hereditary units are present in the same number in both germ cells (ovum and sperm), which combine during fertilization. Thus, heredity is formed by two parents. It is essential that each gene inherited from the mother has a corresponding gene inherited from the father. In such pairs, the genes are not always the same, since as a result of rare but irreversible changes, called mutations, new variants appear. When the paired genes are different (a condition designated as heterozygous), one of them, called dominant, has a decisive effect on the determined trait; the manifestation of the second gene - recessive - will be hidden, although it is passed on unchanged from generation to generation. Each individual apparently possesses many recessive genes, but most of them do not appear. The significance of such a provision for eugenics is quite clear: a significant part of the genes of any person, and accordingly the entire population, is hidden, and eugenic measures should be taken blindly in relation to them.
Many traits, in particular intelligence, are determined not by two genes, but by a special combination of dominant genes (from different pairs), possibly together with some homozygous recessive genes. These combinations are very rarely inherited as a whole and unchanged for the reason that an individual does not inherit all genes from one parent, but only half from each, more precisely one gene from each pair of parent genes. The choice of a specific gene from each pair is random. Genes localized in different chromosome pairs are selected at random and, even being in the same pair of chromosomes, can be partially recombined. Therefore, the greater the number of genes that determine a given trait, the less likely it is to transmit their specific combination unchanged to the next generation. Almost all combinations disintegrate during the maturation of the germ cells, and when the egg and sperm combine, new combinations are formed. This rearrangement and recombination of genes has a very special meaning for eugenics, since most of the socially significant characteristics of a person depend on many genes, the combinations of which cannot be preserved, regardless of whether they are good or bad. Moreover, a certain gene, which gives an unfavorable effect in most combinations, may be beneficial in one combination, and vice versa. It is very rare that we can assess the complete action of a gene; it has to be judged by the final result of gene interaction.
Galton was the first to try to assess the relative influence of heredity and environment on the formation of individual traits in an individual. The study of family cases of genius and special talents convinced him that “nature prevails over the influence of upbringing in those cases when upbringing does not differ much among compared people, when the differences in the conditions of upbringing do not exceed those that usually occur between people of the same social status in the same country. Subsequent studies have confirmed this conclusion. This is especially true for monozygous, so-called. identical, twins, developing from one fertilized egg and therefore having an identical inheritance. Even when twins are separated in early childhood, it has been shown that they remain strikingly similar. This similarity is most pronounced in physical signs (eye and hair color, blood type, baldness, etc.), which are virtually identical in twins of this type.
The inheritance of intelligence has been intensively studied since the development of standard intelligence tests. Identical twins show very similar results. If one of a pair of twins is mentally retarded, then in 88% of cases the second is also. Among fraternal twins, coincidence on this trait occurs only in 7%. Identical environmental conditions carry about the same weight in achieving similar intelligence indicators as genetic differences between fraternal and identical twins. Of the 20 pairs of identical twins raised separately, ten pairs practically did not differ, six pairs differed within 7-12 IQ units and four pairs - within 15-24 units. The latter figure comes from a pair of twins, one of whom studied 13 years more than the other. Thus, no significant differences were found between identical twins raised separately, except in cases where there was a very large difference in the length of education and the cultural level of families.
In general, studies on twins show that similarity in inheritance tendencies tends to lead to similar characteristics, unless individuals are exposed to completely different environmental conditions. Only extremely carefully staged experiments could establish whether a given specific difference in external conditions is capable of affecting a given sign or not; such links must be established for each feature separately. In the formation of the characteristics of an individual, the effect of the environment is intertwined in a complex way with the influence of genetic factors.
5. Genetic changes
Eugenics is primarily interested in the frequency of certain traits in a given population and, accordingly, specific genes that determine these traits or affect their formation. The study of evolutionary processes has shown that gene frequencies change under the influence of four main factors: 1) mutations; 2) natural or artificial selection; 3) cases; 4) isolation or, conversely, migration.
As a result of mutations, new variants of genes appear, without which there can be no long-term process of evolutionary changes, either eugenic or otherwise. Mutation of a specific gene is usually very rare. Frequencies of mutations have been determined for several human genes; their average is approximately 1: 50,000 per generation. This means that, for example, in a population of 50,000 people, one person will have a hemophilia gene, not inherited from their parents, but resulting from a mutation in a gene that determines normal blood clotting. Therefore, unless a way to prevent this mutation is found, no measure to remove the gene from the population will be successful. In the best case, its frequency can be reduced to the level of the mutation frequency. Therefore, hemophilia cannot be completely eliminated; its lower limit is determined by the mutation frequency 1: 50,000.
Carriers of unfavorable hereditary traits are less likely than normal to reach adulthood and have offspring; or they, having reached maturity, have fewer offspring due to celibacy or sterility. In any of these cases, the frequency of the corresponding genes in the next generation decreases. However, in this case, many favorable genes are also lost, since selection culls individuals, i.e. the whole set of genes, not just the gene that does the most harm.
The rate of decrease in the frequency of a gene under the influence of selection depends on the percentage of people in the population in whom this gene is manifested. For example, if a completely dominant gene reduces the viability by half (and, accordingly, is transmitted to the next generation half as often as the normal one), then after 20 generations, or after about 500 years, its frequency will be 1 million times less than the initial one and, ultimately, almost will undoubtedly reach a level where it will only be supported by newly emerging mutations. As a consequence, any harmful dominant trait as a result of natural selection will be very rare, so it makes no sense to fight it with eugenic measures.
Random changes in gene frequencies and the effect of isolation do not have significant significance in our time, since they are noticeable only in small populations, where even a harmful gene can accidentally spread, and a favorable one is eliminated. In small populations, there is also a closer degree of kinship between spouses. By itself, such inbreeding does not change the frequency of genes, but increases the proportion of homozygotes, as a result of which recessive genes become a field of selection. Inbreeding is not harmful if the line has no harmful recessive genes. Since the Middle Ages, small populations have merged into large ones; along with this, migration processes that acquired in the 20th century. unprecedented scope, lead to a mixture of diverse populations. As a result, a significant part of recessive genes have passed into a heterozygous state and do not experience selection pressure, and therefore can significantly increase their frequency.
Having created a social environment, mankind unwittingly smoothed out the rigidity of natural selection. The price we ultimately have to pay for the advancement of modern medicine is the increase in the frequency of a number of adverse genes, whose effects we have learned to mitigate. Many thousands of diabetic patients, previously doomed to die in childhood, are now saved by insulin, can lead relatively normal lives and pass on to their descendants the genes responsible for the disease. Myopia is also not a significant disadvantage for life these days. Probably, no one would like to restore the opposite picture, but medicine itself is constantly increasing the burden that it has to bear.
6. Eugenics and ethics
As humane as the motives behind eugenics — to make humanity healthier, more beautiful, gifted, and ultimately happier — there is a flaw in its very essence. It does not fit into the complex structure of human society, woven from contradictions not only biological, but also legal, social, psychological, and religious.
After all, any improvement, one way or another, begins with the division into bad and good, viable and weak, talented and mediocre. Separation - and then selection, rejection of options that do not meet certain requirements. At the level of human society, such selection inevitably means discrimination.
From the point of view of pure science, eugenics also contains flaws in its premises. For example, its main task is to change the ratio of harmful and useful traits towards useful ones. Indeed, in some cases it can be said that there are "harmful" varieties of genes and "beneficial" ones. However, according to the most optimistic estimates of geneticists, in 200-300 years the number of "useful" genes in the human population could be increased by only hundredths of a percent.
The uselessness of culling "harmful" genes was also shown by the experiments of the Nazis: at one time in Nazi Germany, mental patients were practically destroyed, and at first fewer children with disabilities were actually born. But 40-50 years have passed, and now the percentage of mental patients in Germany is the same as it was before. Another sticking point is that eugenics attempts to control complex human behaviors, intelligence, and giftedness, which are determined by a large number of genes. The nature of their inheritance is very complex. In addition, culture, language, and conditions of upbringing play an important role in the development of talent and intelligence. All this is transmitted to the child not through genes, but through communication with loved ones and teachers. Do not forget that talent is not the presence of any special genes, but, as a rule, their unique, amazing combination that is not repeated in generations. In addition to the combination of genes, talent is determined by many more reasons, among which the fate of a person, his environment, education and, of course, the moment of luck play a significant role, although one may not agree with this. Most likely, humanity will part with the temptations of eugenics. An alternative could be the wide dissemination of knowledge about hereditary diseases and the development of a network of medical genetic consultations, with the help of which even now, in many cases, it is possible to avoid the birth of children with severe genetic diseases.
Conclusion
Eugenics is a term created by Francis Galton in 1883 to denote scientific and practical activities for the development of improved varieties of cultivated plants and breeds of domestic animals, as well as for the protection and improvement of human heredity. Over time, the word "eugenics" came to be used in the latter sense. Kellicott defined eugenics as "the social management of human evolution."
Distinguish between positive and negative eugenics. The goal of positive eugenics is to increase the reproduction of individuals with traits that can be considered valuable to society, such as high intelligence and good physical development or biological fitness. Negative eugenics seeks to reduce the reproduction of those who can be considered mentally or physically underdeveloped or below average developed.
In recent decades, many of the basic premises of eugenics have been scientifically discredited, and the eugenic movement has lost its influence as a social force (although it did have individual adherents). At the same time, thanks to modern advances in life sciences and technology, some of the goals of eugenics have been partially achieved.
List of references
eugenics science heredity
1. Glad D. Future human evolution. Eugenics of the XXI century // Zakharov, 2005.
2.Gnatik E.N. Philosophical problems of eugenics: history and modernity // Problems of Philosophy, No. 6, 2005.
Hen Yu.V. Theory and practice of improving the human breed // Problems of Philosophy, No. 5, 2006.
Yudin B.G. Morality and genetics // Ecology and life, No. 8, 2005.
Eugenics - [Electronic resource]. URL: http://traditio-ru.org/wiki/Eugenika (date accessed: 04.06.2014)
Eugenics: Science of the Future or Inhuman Experiment? - [Electronic resource]. URL: http://moikompas.ru/compas/eugenics (date accessed: 04.06.2014)
Tutoring
Need help exploring a topic?
Our experts will advise or provide tutoring services on topics of interest to you.
Send a request with the indication of the topic right now to find out about the possibility of obtaining a consultation.
As you know, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Francis Galton dreamed of not breeding a "new race" when he presented to the public a new science - eugenics. The reputation of eugenics has been tarnished by the efforts of the Nazis to such an extent that the word itself remains a dirty word. Meanwhile, this science could save people from disease, suffering and even death itself ...
And how well it all started!
At first, eugenics was received with a bang. The most outstanding people in the late XIX - early XX centuries willingly stood under the banner of a new science, which proclaimed its task to improve the human race and prevent human suffering. “Because of congenital defects, our civilized human breed is much weaker than that of any other species - both wild and domesticated ... If we spent on the improvement of the human race one twentieth of the efforts and resources that are spent on improving the breed of horses and livestock what a universe of genius we could create! " Bernard Shaw, Herbert Wells, Winston Churchill, and Theodore Roosevelt readily agreed with these arguments of Francis Galton. And how can you not agree? Everything in a person should be perfect! Chekhov's thought lives on, but does not win, colliding with human imperfection. For each of us is imperfect. Take a look around, and you will probably notice how “unevenly, unevenly” nature has endowed everyone: it gave someone excellent brains, but saved on health, and made someone happy with an unusually attractive appearance, but gave the additive a disgusting character. That is why people admire people in whom beauty, kindness, intelligence and strength are combined at once. There are few of them. And I would like more ...
Actually, even the ancients began to think about improving the human breed. The same Plato (428-347 BC) in his famous Politics spoke about the need for state intervention in the regulation of marriages, explained how to select spouses in order to give birth to physically strong children with outstanding moral principles. Sparta was a well-known "selection center" in antiquity. There, babies, devoid of the physical qualities necessary for future warriors, were simply thrown off a cliff without further thought. It is absolutely pointless to criticize or condemn the Spartans today: such were the mores of a society where boys were born for only one purpose - to replenish the army. By the way, this goal was achieved: today everyone remembers that “in a healthy body there is a healthy mind, one Spartan is worth two” ...
The best of the best
Years flew by, centuries flew by, and ordinary mortals were still tormented by their own imperfections and wondering how good it would be to live surrounded by completely pleasant people, both externally and internally ... And while they suffered from manilovism, scientists thought about how to achieve this on practice.
So, the first who came to grips with this issue was the English scientist - geologist, anthropologist and psychologist Sir Francis Galton. A poignant biography detail: Sir Francis was Charles Darwin's cousin and strongly supported his theory of evolution. As an aristocrat, Galton did not go far for research materials, but began to study the pedigrees of the illustrious noble families of England. He tried to establish patterns of inheritance of talent, intelligence and strength. Then, in the late 19th - early 20th century, it was generally fashionable to engage in all kinds of selection and selection. The fact that Gregor Mendel's laws on the inheritance of traits were rediscovered played a role. Galton also did not stay away from the new-old trends. He reasoned that since the selection of the best breeding animals is necessary to obtain a new breed, then the purposeful selection of married couples should bear fruit. Moreover, it seemed so simple: for healthy, beautiful and talented children to be born, it is necessary that the best of the best become their parents! Actually, that's why the new science was called eugenics, which translated from Greek means "the birth of the best." Here is what Galton himself said about this: “We define this word for a science, which is by no means limited to the question of correct mating and the laws of marriage, but mainly in relation to man studies all the influences that improve the race, and seeks to strengthen these influences, as well as all influences that worsen the race, and seeks to weaken them. " Notice! There is not a word about the need to breed "eugenically valuable populations." And, nevertheless, very soon there was a split in the eugenic society. And that's why. Any breeder knows: in order to develop a new, improved breed, about 95% of the "initial material" - animals, birds, seeds, etc., should be discarded. The main postulate of any selection: the worst (weak) should not participate in reproduction ... It was this pitfall that eugenics came across. It was then that a head-on collision of the new science with human ethics and morality took place.
Split
It seemed to the most zealous adherents of the new science to improve the hereditary qualities of a person using only genetic principles. Such eugenics is called positive. But eugenics received support in society, which was later called negative. Its followers decided that for the sake of preserving humanity as a whole, it is necessary to prevent the appearance of offspring among people with mental and physical disabilities, among alcoholics, drug addicts, and criminals. Here, as an excuse, it is worth noting that in the second half of the 19th and the first decades of the 20th century, a society that was completely civilized and enlightened was seized by the fear of degeneration. Newspapers regularly reported about the growing number of mentally ill people and other "damage" to human nature - mental, physical and moral. The data was also supported by science. In this light, the ready-made solution to the health of humanity as a species, offered by negative eugenics, seemed more than acceptable.
Indiana method
The first to fight the degradation of mankind were the United States. In 1904, the Sterilization Act was passed and enacted in Indiana. Compulsively sterilized "inferior" individuals in the face of alcoholics, the mentally ill and recidivist criminals. Actually, according to the name of the state, the method was called Indian. I must say, it turned out to be very popular: one way or another, but in 26 years it was tested in forty more states.
What was the Indian method? Nothing to do with medieval horrors.
By and large, it can even be called humane: a person was simply cut the seminal ducts. That is, he could be sexually active, but lost the ability to reproduce. All socially unreliable elements had to go through a similar procedure. "Dodgers" were mercilessly punished: they were imprisoned for three years or fined $ 1000. At the same time, negative eugenics itself was popularized in all available ways: they made films, wrote books and articles, created special institutes ...
With this approach, “unusable human material” was practically excluded from the breeding process. One problem: "unhealthy", as a rule, were people who did not manage to take place socially. There was a substitution of concepts: eugenics tried to heal the "ulcers of society" - poverty, alcoholism, vagrancy, crime and prostitution.
Crazy? Castrate!
The “eugenistic” issue was approached differently in the Nordic countries. Since the late 1920s and 1930s, Denmark, Sweden, Iceland, Norway and Finland have pursued targeted policies at the government level to sterilize the mentally disabled. As in the United States, they were sterilized, thereby depriving them of the possibility of transmitting harmful genes.
What is noteworthy, everywhere the law on sterilization was adopted with a bang. No one - not the public, not scientists, not a doctor * - saw anything reprehensible in him, and therefore did not oppose it. So, in an atmosphere of complete consensus, a mentally retarded child, after appropriate testing, could easily be taken to a closed institution. Do you want the child back? Be so kind as to sterilize it. Adults were treated in the same way. They were simply informed, they say, you are sick, and therefore it was decided for you ... And such patients, as a rule, had nowhere to go. Of course, the question of the ill health of an individual was determined by a special commission. But who was on the commission? And when how! The fate of some "patients" was decided in the ministries of health, and the fate of others was decided by ordinary doctors, and sometimes even a pastor, together with representatives of the guardianship and / or public education authorities. So the "reliability" of the conclusions in most cases, presumably, was doubtful ... But then for some reason no one thought about it. In Scandinavia, everyone was so carried away by the idea of \u200b\u200bimproving society through castration that in the late 1930s they were ready to follow the path of the United States and start sterilizing prostitutes, vagrants and all other "predisposed to antisocial behavior" ...
A new breed of people
Everything changed dramatically in 1933, when the National Socialists came to power in Germany. In fact, it was the Nazis who drove the last nail into the coffin of eugenics, starting to justify the racial policy of the Third Reich with its help. All "non-Aryans" were recognized as "subhumans" and in order to improve "the breeds of people were subject to destruction ...
As for the sterilization so beloved by everyone, in Germany it took on a truly unprecedented scale: in 1942 alone more than a thousand people were sterilized - and this is among the civilian population. The number of victims of eugenics in prisons and concentration camps was estimated at tens of thousands. Nazi doctors practiced new methods of sterilization on prisoners - radiation, chemical, mechanical, etc., etc. In essence, these were sophisticated tortures. Then, at the Nuremberg trials, the Nazi "researchers" were recognized as executioners. And they put a taboo on innocent eugenics ...
Geneticist is a friend of man
Actually, no one has officially removed this taboo. And yet, positive eugenics is now beginning to revive. For all research related to human DNA is nothing more than a manifestation of eugenics. What, for example, does decoding of the human genome give? You can find out which hereditary diseases a person is predisposed to, and prevent them. Example?
Yes please! In the United States, among Ashkenazi Jews, children were often born with the amaurotic idiocy of Thei-Sachs. This is a hereditary metabolic disease in which the child's nervous system is affected. As a result, the baby is doomed to an early death. But the situation changed after the Ashkenazi were tested for this pathology. In the case when both spouses were carriers of the "diseased" gene, fetal research was carried out during pregnancy. And if it turned out that the embryo suffers from Tay-Sachs disease, the pregnancy was simply terminated.
Rather, they gave parents a choice: to leave the sick child or not. The most common answer was "No!" Refuse from further bearing, as a rule, and in those cases when the child in the womb is diagnosed with Down syndrome. In America, for example, more than 90% of embryos are aborted after such a terrible verdict.
Meanwhile, a child suffering from Down syndrome can be born even to completely healthy parents. Nobody is safe from this. So, in theory, today, before conceiving a child, you should visit genetics. Especially if serious diseases were observed in families on the paternal or maternal side. Medical genetic counseling will make it clear: are you at risk when deciding to have a baby, or are your fears zero? Thus, you can insure against many problems in the future.
In the USA, England, Sweden and Finland, parents-to-be are already being offered to investigate the karyotype in advance - a set of chromosomes - in order to identify the presence of possible chromosomal rearrangements and reduce the risk to nothing ... What is this if not eugenics? What is this if not human improvement? What is this if not getting rid of suffering? What is this if not humanism?
Monday after Easter: what cannot be done on Bright Week?
How to peel pumpkin
Preparations for raising immunity in children: which are effective
Chloe Moretz and Brooklyn Beckham renewed their relationship a year after breaking up
Useful do-it-yourself zucchini face masks