The Theory Of Liberal Eugenics

Lack of scientific knowledge about genetic biology was the primary reason why eugenics movement died out towards the latter half of the 20th century. It was concluded that there was actually no significant way to identify “fit” families. The eugenics movement unjustly called people unfit without reason. The primary downside to the eugenics movement in the United States is that scientist paid too much attention to the genetic correlations between class and genes, but rarely looked at the environmental factors that affected the class. Essentially what the eugenics movement did was called families that were alcoholics and thieves due to your genes. An argument could have been very easily made that these families were

Eugenics is the pseudoscience of obtaining desired traits in a population through controlled repopulation, specifically by preventing those deemed “unfit” by “Nordic stereotypes” from breeding. Most modern day Americans do not realize the origins of eugenics, which was planted by Charles Darwin and Sir Francis Galton and bloomed in America, and what effect it had on the attempt to create a master race in Nazi Germany. America played a very influential role in German eugenics by collaboration between scientists and funding from American corporations. The negative connotation associated with this science is usually directed towards the scientists of the Holocaust under Adolf Hitler, and not towards American scientists who also partook in horrific experiments and performed inhumane acts as well. This is absurd when you consider that the United States was the backbone of the eugenics movement internationally and only developed a negative perspective of the research when it became affiliated with the holocaust and the troubling actions of Nazi Germany.

Eugenics is defined, in some way or the other, as the process of reshaping the human race by determining the kinds of people who will be born. As such, there is much debate in the field of eugenics, with authors, like Philip Kitcher, who support laissez-faire or a minimalist approach of eugenics in which eugenic decision-making should be limited only to avoid neurological illnesses and in which parental free choice is valued. Gregory Stock’s essay, The Enhanced and Un-Enhanced, presents otherwise by supporting the position of maximalist eugenics, allowing individuals the full extent in the selection of genes. On the other hand, the film, Gattaca, raises major ethical problems by illustrating a dystopian society resulted by extensive

Eugenics is the scientific belief that through “selective breeding… and [the] restriction of reproduction by birth control or surgical procedures” (Thomson), a ‘better’ and more productive society could develop. Similar to the ideas of Social Darwinists, Eugenicists used medical intervention to weed out the unfit members of society(anyone who was not white), and continued to grow the population of the ‘fit members. People believed that ‘unfit’ members of society had genes that would bring society down as a whole, and “race mixing, or crossbreeding, would deplete the national fitness of Anglo-Saxon Americans” (Thomson). Eugenics during the progressive Era: Although most progressive thinkers were against the Social Darwinist theory, there

Hell is a road that was paved with good intentions; this cliché quintessentially describes the eugenics movement. Eugenics is the controlled reproduction of individuals; the main focus of eugenics is to isolate “good” genes from “bad” genes (Dolan DNA Learning Center). The main goal of Eugenics is to create a higher quality human race (Dolan DNA Learning Center). This movement became the center of which the twentieth century orbited around. The movement swayed numerous significant policies, which were implemented within the United States, ranging from immigration to sterilization (Selden). What is truly unsettling is the radical nature of the eugenics movement, which was originally founded with good intentions by Francis Galton (Carlson). The Eugenics movement made headway owing to the fact that America was frantic for a solution to social problems and believed that this scientific approach was the solution it yearned for; this is evident from the origin, purpose, supporters and policies that resulted from eugenics.

Future eugenicists can extort their knowledge and use it to their advantage. Eugenics is an interesting subject that is co-dependent on society; the future holds great possibilities for acknowledgment in this field of science.

call in telephone poll, that 49% supported sterilization of the mentally ill. Other people feel

The Eugenics era was said to have ended in 1981 with the last case of forced sterilization. The ideology of eugenics is viewed as pseudoscience now and as a inhumane event in American history. However, there are many individuals who still hold the same sentiment. This is evident in laws and different organizations in America. African Americans make up 13% of the population, however they make up 40% of inmates. This is due to racial bias leading to mass incarceration of minorities, specifically Black men. America implements racial bias laws and acts, such as the War on Drugs and alters the message to show it in positive light. The Dream Act proposed in America was not passed, however there is DACA for illegal immigrants. In this year Trump

Social injustice or inequality would have thought to have been a thing of the past. Yet, there are some countries who still practice this in a form called eugenics. Eugenics is “the science of improving a human population by controlled breeding” in order to achieve the social hierarchy said country desires (The Definition of Eugenics). As extreme and of the past as this sounds, this action is happening all over the world and even right under the United States nose. South America is still practicing eugenics in today’s society and enforces it through many means. It is unfortunate that social injustice along with eugenics is still a problem and not many people know about it. Many parallels can be drawn from the late twentieth century/ modern day South America to that of the Jim Crowe era within the United States. The eugenics that are taking place in South America are they drive for lighter skin citizens while disregarding those who have darker skin. This “disregarding” comes from fewer opportunities within the education system and jobs. This not a new thing however, social injustice has been dating back since colonial times and has continued to the present. Eugenics in South America is a problem in today’s society and should be addressed in a global matter to expect a change.

The idea of eugenics was first introduced by Sir Francis Galton, who believed that the breeding of two wealthy and successful members of society would produce a child superior to that of two members of the lower class. This assumption was based on the idea that genes for success or particular excellence were present in our DNA, which is passed from parent to child. Despite the blatant lack of research, two men, Georges Vacher de Lapouge and Jon Alfred Mjoen, played to the white supremacists' desires and claimed that white genes were inherently superior to other races, and with this base formed the first eugenics society. The American Eugenics Movement attempted to unethically obliterate the rising tide of lower classes by immorally

There is much bias and confusion surrounding the topic of eugenics. Many times the reason for this is the lack of understanding of what the term means, where it states “In 1883, Sir Francis Galton, a respected British scholar, and cousin of Charles Darwin, first used the term eugenics, meaning ‘well-born.’ (Genetics Generation, 2015).” This term has evolved to encompass more than just “well-born” as can be seen in the encyclopedia. “The eleventh edition of The Encyclopedia Britannica defines eugenics as ‘the organic betterment of the race through wise application of the laws of heredity.’ (Court, 2004).” The meaning of the word eugenics, due to the way it has been used, confuses many people.

The birth of a child is supposed to be a time of joy, the uncertainty of life leads to this one point in time. Will she or he be the next president, a star athlete, a genius or just fall into the crowd as another citizen. With recent advancements in science, this uncertainty has become a thing of the past. The human being is now seen as a commodity and no more is valued in the uncertainty of individuality. The parent can now choose how they want their child to come out or develop into. Sandel’s book The Case Against Perfection: Ethics in the Case of Modern Eugenics is a well researched look into examples of modern eugenics and the problems that arise from it. These topics range from the ethics of cloning, athletes using performance enhancing drugs, and other practical uses in everyday life. Sandel’s argument is that there is value in human nature (even with all its flaws), and genetic engineering will forever change human nature. Destroying the very essence of what it is to be human and scarring humanity. The main features of human nature that will be altered: are responsibility, humility and solidarity.

The theory of Eugenics can be dated back all the way to 400 B.C. but was not popularized until the mid-1800s by an English scientist, Francis Galton. He researched and published the theory that aimed to improve the genetic quality of the human population through selective breeding (NC Office of Archives and History). As the half-cousin of Charles Darwin, Galton applied the Darwinism science (survival of the fittest) to heredity characteristics. Two types of Eugenics stemmed from the theory, positive and negative. Positive eugenics is encouraging the “best” people in the society based on financial and personal features to have more children while negative eugenics is picking people with flaws and defects from the population

The roots of eugenics can be traced back to Britain in the early 1880’s when Sir Francis Galton generated the term from the Greek word for “well-born”. He defined eugenics as the science of improving stock, whether human or animal. According to the American Eugenics Movement, today’s study of eugenics has many similarities to studies done in the early 20th century. Back then, “Eugenics was, quite literally, an effort to breed better human beings – by encouraging the reproduction of people with "good" genes and discouraging those with "bad" genes.” (www.eugenicsarchive.org) According to Merriam-Webster, the modern day definition of eugenics is, a science that deals with the improvement (as by control of human mating) of

Eugenics will become a universal practice in the future due to the fact that humanity never learned the lesson from the Holocaust and the Second World War. For instance, in the years immediately after the war, many American geneticists worked as evaluators for many newborns’ adoptive placements. They would “focus on the [child]’s ability to appear convincingly white, relying upon examination of the ‘sacral spot at the base of the spine,’ nose width, lip thickness, hair texture and shape, and even scrotum coloration” to determine the type of family most suitable for the child. Moreover, Peter Singer, who was a moral philosopher born at the end of the war, publically endorsed the termination of not only disabled infants, but children and adults as well. Shockingly, he was also a supporter of the Nazi Aktion T4 program, More recently, an American jail sterilized all of its female prisoners who both failed to graduate from high school and had five or more children. The jail administrators did this without the consent of these prisoners. These were examples of negative eugenics, the one practiced by the Nazi party and caused the deaths of millions of people. Clearly, the American geneticists, Singer and the jail administrators all wanted to improve the quality of the population by discouraging the reproductions of people with less desirable traits, such as African American features, disabilities and low intelligence. Both the continued practices of negative eugenics as well as