“Kalosgenics” Evolution or Eugenics Revolution – A Brief Overview

Reading Time – 7 Minutes, Difficulty Level 1/5

Eugenics. This is a controversial word the use of which generally remains taboo today, even if your perspective is humanitarian or simply STEM-based. This brief overview endeavours to outline the progression from the historical cruelty of ‘old eugenics’, synonymous with the scientifically erroneous and immoral theory of “racial improvement” and “planned breeding”, to ‘new eugenics’ (which hereinafter, for clear separation of these two distinct approaches, is replaced with my new Greek construct, “kalosgenics”).

The Origins of Eugenics in Ancient Greece

Ancient Greece witnessed remarkable contributions to the developments of medicine, mathematics and philosophy. Before it became a concept centred in the scientific community, the earliest form of eugenics was most contemplated amongst philosophers.

One notably, Plato, suggested that the state should hold the power to monitor and manage the reproduction of its ‘Republic’s’ citizens, and strengthen the upper-class.  This would be achieved through quantifying a person’s value where those with higher numbers would exclusively procreate with others of similar numerical value. He theorised that this would advance human evolution. This use of basic mathematics was one of the earliest attempts to quantify genetic inheritance ahead of the development of Mendelian genetics.

Galton’s Eugenics: Positive vs Negative Approaches

Essentially eugenics is the study and practice of selective mating to increase the prevalence of specifically desirable heritable traits in order to improve the human species. Modern eugenics was led by Sir Francis Galton in the late 19^th and early 20^th centuries.

Cousin of Charles Darwin, who first described the theory of evolution, Galton became fascinated with evolutionary processes. This gradually developed into a desire to improve the human race through his ideas on the heritability of social and psychological traits. It became a deep-rooted belief amongst scientists, as well as himself, that success was a familial trait and that the greater the relation of one to a successful individual, the more likely that person would also find success.

Galton argued that personality, work ethic, intelligence, and accomplishment were all heritable traits and that environment played very little role in the nurturing of these characteristics. Furthermore, it was Galton himself who is credited for the phrase ‘nature versus nurture’.

Galton’s concept of eugenics was based on the progression of religious belief to create a Utopian society. He originally imagined the improvement of the human species through the marriage of the elite members of society breeding in large numbers. However, in his later work, Galton began to focus on less desirable traits, and encouraging segregation in society.

This resulted in the creation of two branches of eugenics: positive and negative. Positive eugenics focused on the breeding of desirable traits to improve the human race whereas negative eugenics aimed to reduce the reproduction of undesirable traits by preventing the breeding of their carriers.

Negative Eugenics: Charles Davenport, Sterilisation Laws, and Tragic Consequences

In the history of eugenics, Charles Davenport was an early protagonist of negative eugenics. Following Galton in advocating the reproduction of the elite, Davenport founded the Eugenics Record Office within the US. The Office collected social and biological information about the American population, and recorded family pedigrees.

The existence of the Office took a dark turn soon after its founding – the first eugenic sterilisation law passed in Indiana in 1907. California and Washington soon followed. It was not long before euthanasia of certain marginalised groups was considered legal. The extent of eugenic sterilisation laws progressed to more than 60,000 people sterilised during the 20^th century across 32 states. Henry Goddard who worked with eugenics-based theories created the IQ test and advocated the labelling of individuals based on IQ while encouraging the segregation of those below a score of 70 from society (spawning the labels of ‘idiot’, ‘imbecile’ and ‘moron’).

A tragic example of the targeting of marginalised groups can be found from August 1964 through the sterilisation of ‘Bertha’ (her name was redacted from records). The North Carolina Eugenics Board met to consider whether a black woman, 20 years of age and a single mother, met the requirements for sterilisation.

She was regarded as intellectually disabled having an IQ of 62, so with a lack of education combined with an orphaned childhood the Board regarded ‘Bertha’ as being incapable of ‘rehabilitation’. Bertha was therefore considered to be unable to look after both herself and her child and, without her input, her ‘guardian’ signed the form for her sterilisation. This is just one of many examples of the terrible consequences of Galton’s theories on the development of eugenics.

The Dark Legacy of Nazi Eugenics, Forced Sterilisation, and Mass Murder

Perhaps the most notorious example of the escalation of ideas based on ‘old eugenics’ is in their reverence and utilisation during the Nazi regime as justification towards the mass murder of Jews and other marginalised minority groups. The ‘cleansing’ of German society became a campaign to improve the overall health of the nation; this resulted in a programme of approximately 400,000 forced sterilisations and 275,000 euthanised deaths.

The targeting was not just racially driven however; targets also included those diagnosed as: epileptic, schizophrenic, bipolar, deaf, blind, homosexual or transgender, ‘feebleminded’, and any considered significantly mentally or physically disabled. This was evident even after the passing of the Nuremberg Laws in 1935, where testing for hereditary diseases became compulsory for marriage partners in order to maintain Aryan purity.

With so many atrocities committed in the name of eugenics in the past, where does that leave our understanding of eugenics today? Have we progressed and moved away from the immoral ideology that aimed at producing racial and biological purity?

Contemporary Eugenics: Kalosgenics and the Quest for Genetic Well-being

Kalosgenics practices prevalent today are those such as pre-implantation diagnoses, embryo selection, gene therapy, and sperm bank usage. Kalosgenics places greater emphasis on biological autonomy and positive eugenics in comparison with old eugenics.

It supports genetic modification or selection of traits that are intended to improve quality of life with the aim of improving the chances of ‘success of life’. Kalosgenics practices can prevent the transmission of genetic diseases, improving the quality of life of individuals and families. This in turn could alleviate the ever-decreasing burden on healthcare systems.

Ethical Dilemmas in Kalosgenics

While kalosgenics can be used to potentially reduce suffering on a global scale and provide individuals greater control over their own reproductive choices, there are still many legitimate ethical and safety concerns. Desires for ‘designer babies’ could lead to discrimination against individuals who are deemed to have less-desirable traits. How are less-desirable traits defined?

How can such a thing be reliably monitored and regulated consistently and at a large scale? At what point can genetic modification of our offspring be considered ‘playing God’? Furthermore, reinforcement of existing social inequalities could exacerbate unfair disadvantages within society, broadening gaps in socioeconomic status and increasing health disparities.

It is important to note that some critics argue that manipulation of these new genetic technologies may still perpetuate ableism and discrimination against individuals with disabilities or certain genetic traits. There are also safety concerns with the possibility of unforeseen consequences of genetic modification; long term safety and efficacy of technologies implementing kalosgenics are relatively unknown.

The creation of new diseases, or unintended changes to the genetic makeup of our descendants, are potential outcomes of a lack of strict regulation of these new technologies. Finally, the reduction of genetic diversity must be considered as a potential repercussion; possibly affecting the adaptability and resilience to disease of the human species as a whole.

The Kalosgenics Evolution

In summary, old eugenics has a brutal place in our not-too-distant history. This has necessitated a revolution in conceptual approach and practice. Kalosgenics can improve disease prevention and has the potential to progress the human race, in terms of better health and wellbeing, but concerns remain both in terms of safety and ethics.

Careful consideration and regulation are necessary with any new technology or scientific process to ensure that the benefits are maximised, and risks minimized. Betterment of quality of life is a natural human ambition and we should be relieved, but not complacent, that, for the most part, we have progressed beyond Galton’s ideological thinking and can celebrate the diverse characteristics that make each one of us a distinct and remarkable individual.

References

History of eugenics – Wikipedia

Eugenics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Carnegie Institution for Science Statement on Eugenics Research | Carnegie Science

Human enhancement: The new eugenics – PMC (nih.gov)