Did you ever meet a little snob on a playground who thought he was better than everyone?
Jack: Sometimes you sound like a snob. Do you think you are better than other people?
Eugene: I don't think I'm better; I know I'm better.
Jack: Oh? What makes you think that?
Eugene: I'm smarter.
Jack: That makes you better than other people? Are you also stronger, faster, wiser, more loving?
Eugene: Look, you asked me a question, and I answered. I'm smarter. It's all objective and scientific; my IQ is higher than yours, a lot higher. That's just the way life works; I was born smarter than you. I'm better.
Well, the little snob is back, all grown up. He still thinks he is better than you, and now he takes it all very seriously. His ideas are called eugenics.
Eugenics is pretty simple, in some ways. Eugene, the snobby kid with the bow tie, really believes that a high IQ makes him a better human being. For him, what matters most about people is how smart they are, and he believes that:
The opposite of eugenics: All men are created equal
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
On July 4, 1776, a document creating a new and independent nation was made public, signed by a group of courageous men who had been meeting to debate the future of a continent. The Declaration of Independence began with words that have stirred the hearts of Americans and many other people around the world for over two centuries. These words have great power, but what exactly do they mean? Are we equal? In what sense are we equal?
The American ideal is based on the idea that people are equal. Eugenics, by contrast, is based on the idea that people are not equal. To understand America, or to understand democracy, or indeed to understand the religious beliefs that people have held in this nation, we must develop a clear understanding of equality.
In 1994, two scholars wrote about the idea of equality, offering two possible definitions. In The Bell Curve, Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray made a distinction between equal opportunity and equal endowment. They argued that it is noble for a nation to make sure that every citizen has an equal opportunity to prosper. But they said it is obvious that people are not endowed equally. Some people are taller than others, some are stronger than others, some people are more intelligent than others. And these inequalities are at least partly because of genetic differences, not because of differences in the way children are raised.
"We must learn to accept inequalities," wrote Herrnstein and Murray. In fact, they wrote, the framers of the Declaration of Independence would not have said that "all men are created equal" if they had understood genetics.
Equality. The word has a nice sound, and a long history. But what does it mean? Different people use the word to mean different things: who is right? And does it make any difference what the word means?
The American Revolution was fought over a declaration that "all men are created equal." The French Revolution started with ideas about "liberty, equality and fraternity." So the word matters, somehow.
It is true that the framers of the Declaration of Independence did not understand modern genetics. But still, perhaps their idea of equality was based on something other than genetics. Perhaps they meant that we have equal dignity, because we are all children of one loving heavenly Father.
A New Generation of Americans When John F. Kennedy became President of the United States, he spoke about the meaning of "equality." He had fought in World War II, as a lieutenant in the Navy, and had been the skipper of a PT boat; he became President after Dwight Eisenhower, who had been the Supreme Allied Commander in that war. So his election represented a shift in leadership from one generation to another. Kennedy referred to this change, saying that "the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans." But the "torch" in his speech was very specific: it was a belief in the fundamental basis of human equality. Here are his words: We observe today not a victory of party, but a celebration of freedom -- symbolizing an end, as well as a beginning -- signifying renewal, as well as change. For I have sworn before you and Almighty God the same solemn oath our forebears prescribed nearly a century and three quarters ago. The world is very different now. For man holds in his mortal hands the power to abolish all forms of human poverty and all forms of human life. And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe -- the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God. We dare not forget today that we are the heirs of that first revolution. Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans ... |
Human Dignity
In American society today, many people work hard to avoid saying things about politics that seem to require a belief in God. So it is worthwhile trying to find a way to talk about equal dignity without referring to God. But the clearest expression of this equality, whether you accept the theology or just use the language as a metaphor, is the idea that we have equal dignity, because we are the children of one loving Father. This Father loves us equally, whether we are rich or poor, tall or short, quick or slow, smart or not so smart. In fact, if there are any hints of any inequality in the Father's love, it seems that the Father has a distinct preference for those children who are weak or vulnerable.
The concept of "equal dignity" is not the same thing as equal endowment or equal opportunity.
The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution guarantees "equal protection of the laws," a concept that stands between equal dignity and equal opportunity.
Eugenics: a theory of inequality
In the 19th century, a British thinker named Francis Galton laid the foundations for a theory of humanity that is based on inequality. The name of his theory is "eugenics."
The word "eugenics" is based on two Greek words -- eu (eu) which means good, and gen (gen) which refers to birth or race. Other words which use the prefix eu- include:
The Greek root gen, referring to production or birth or race, also shows up in a variety of words, including:
When you look at the history of the root word gen, and at the way it has developed over the last 25 centuries, it is striking that the references to birth have always been related to ideas about race. In eugenics, the focus shifts back and forth between tiny genes and the whole race. The alternative to eugenics is to focus more on the individual, and speak about the overwhelming dignity of the human individual (who has genes and belongs to the race).
There is a word related to eugenics worth noting: dysgenic, referring to a bad birth or bad generation. The prefix dys- is the opposite of eu, meaning bad or unfortunate, but it is not used much except in a medical context (dyspnea, difficulty in breathing; dyslexia, difficulty in reading; muscular dystrophy, malnourished muscles). Eugenics is a noun that refers to (1) a pseudo-science about improving the human race, (2) a program of action to improve humanity, and (3) an ideology about improving the human race that functions like a religion. Eugenicist is a noun, referring to a person who believes in eugenics. Eugenic is an adjective used by eugenicists to refer to desirable traits, or to a likelihood of producing "fit" children. Dysgenic is used only as an adjective, to refer to undesirable traits, or a likelihood of producing "unfit" children.
The idea of eugenics became popular in the 19th century. An Englishman named Francis Galton coined the word and promoted the idea. He did not claim that the idea was his own; he said that he was building on the ideas of other people, especially Plato, Thomas Malthus -- and of course his cousin, the eminent naturalist, Charles Darwin.
So what did they say?
Plato's words about eugenics
Plato was a Greek philosopher who lived from about 427 BC to about 347 BC. His thought had a tremendous impact on all of Western culture. One of his greatest works was the Republic, in which he explored the idea of justice, and how to develop a just society. He favored a system of aristocracy, or rule by the best people.
Plato's discussion includes military matters, and he talked about a class of people who would be devoted to guarding the society, a kind of warrior class. Soldiers should be fierce when dealing with enemies, but should not be a threat to their own neighbors. Achieving and maintaining this balance is difficult, Plato felt, and so he discussed some ideas for breeding the kind of people he wanted. His ideas about breeding soldiers are shocking, and it is possible that Plato was making fun of someone else's ideas. But whether Plato took the ideas seriously or not, 19th century eugenicists were fascinated.
Plato noted that dogs are frequently gentle to people they know, but fierce to strangers. Dog owners pay attention to their breeding, selecting only those considered to be the best. If the owner does not pay attention to breeding, the value of the dogs -- or birds, horses or other animals -- can deteriorate quickly. The question, then, is whether the techniques of animal breeding can be adapted to humans, to raise soldiers. Plato found human breeding plausible, if the rulers of the society were willing and able to be deceptive, manipulating people into accepting the rulers' plans. Breeding a soldier class requires that the rulers select the best of both sexes, and have them mate as much as possible, while discouraging mating among the inferior.
Plato's scheme for a perfect society included not only barnyard methods of breeding humans and deception, but also promiscuity and abortion. Men and women considered too old to have healthy children could engage in sexual activity promiscuously, but any child they conceived accidentally was to be aborted.
Not all Greeks favored abortion and infanticide. Hippocrates, the Greek physician who is called the "father of medicine," lived at about the same time as Plato. His greatest legacy is the charter of conduct he wrote for medical professionals, which was used for ages. It includes unequivocal opposition to euthanasia and abortion: "I will give no deadly drug to anyone, though it be asked of me, nor will I counsel such, and especially I will not aid a woman to procure abortion."
Population problems in Scripture
In the Book of Exodus, we can see what happens when people no longer pay attention to individuals. The descendants of the Jewish patriarchs became numerous in Egypt. Then a new pharaoh came to power who was not mindful of what Joseph had done for his predecessors in years past. He saw the Jewish population as a threat. "Look!" he said. "The Israelite people are growing in numbers and in power, surpassing us! We should respond intelligently, and prevent their continuing growth." So he began to oppress them with forced labor. When that did not achieve his goals, he started a campaign of population control, ordering the Hebrew midwives to kill all the boys who were born.
This grave evil began when the new Pharaoh no longer saw individuals like Joseph; instead, all he saw was a population of foreigners.
In the Second Book of Samuel (chapter 24), there is another story about the evil of seeing people as numbers rather than as individuals. The chapter begins, "The Lord's anger against Israel flared again, and he incited David against the Israelites, prompting him to take a census of Israel and Judah." Joab argued with King David about it, but David persisted, and ordered a census. "Afterward, however, David regretted that he had carried out the census. He said to the Lord, 'What I have done was a serious evil; I have sinned.'" Then David was punished severely for carrying out a census. But the story does not explain what is wrong with a census. In fact, elsewhere in the Bible, there are careful tallies of the population. But it does seem plausible that the problem is straightforward: it is wrong to think of people as numbers, stripped of their individuality. In any case, carrying out a census is apparently a morally hazardous task; there is something about a census that can be seriously wrong.
Thomas R. Malthus
Thomas R. Malthus was an English clergyman and professor of history who lived from 1766 to 1834. He wrote an extremely provocative and influential book entitled An Essay on the Principle of Population. The central idea in the book is about population and food supplies. He said that population, if allowed to grow without any interruption, can double every 25 years, while the food supply cannot increase that fast.
If the population doubles each generation, then in two generations it will increase by a factor of four, and in three generations it will increase by a factor of eight, and in four generations by a factor of 16, etc. Unless this geometric progression is interrupted, the population would theoretically increase a thousandfold in ten generations, a millionfold in 20 generations, a billion-fold in 30 generations. Sooner or later, according to this bleak model, the population will outstrip the food supply, and there will be massive starvation. Malthus said that there are alternatives to starvation: war, disease and vice.
Like all the clergy of his time -- indeed, like all Christian clergy until the 20th century -- he considered artificial birth control to be a vice. However, people today who adopt his ideas, called neo-Malthusians, no longer oppose birth control. In fact, they promote it.
According to Malthus, the idea that population will inevitably outstrip the food supply does not undercut the idea of a loving God. However, Malthus argues, God's concern seems to be about the human race as a whole, not about the individual. Hunger andwant may be hard on the poor, but they lift humanity out of torpor, and drive people to develop their minds. Of course, starving people in order to produce a better race may seem cruel, and Malthus admits that it is "partial evil." But, he argues, "evil seems to be necessary to create exertion, and exertion seems evidently necessary to create mind."
If hunger and pain are the tools that God uses to drive a lazy human race to develop mentally, as Malthus argues, then should people care for the poor? Malthus was not enthusiastic about caring for the poor. In his day, caring for the poor was generally among the responsibilities of a clergyman, but Malthus thought that charity just encouraged the poor to marry and create more poor children. Also, he said, giving food to "a part of the society that cannot in general be considered as the most valuable part" meant that there was less food available for the "more industrious and more worthy members."
| Enrichment: arithmetic and geometric progression "Arithmetic progression" is a fancy name for something that is quite familiar. It goes: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 ... "Geometric progression" can be simple doubling: 1 - 2 - 4 - 8 - 16 - 32 - 64 ... But there is another form of "geometric progression" that is found throughout nature. It starts 1 - 2 . . ., but then proceeds not by doubling the previous number, but by adding the two previous numbers. The series of numbers is called the Fibonacci series. You can carry this out for as long as you want, and use it to generate a number that the Greeks called the "golden mean."
The "golden mean" ratio is found all over nature, in petals, leaves, shells and elsewhere. There is an important difference between this series and simple doubling; with the Fibonacci series, each new item (or, in biology, each new cell) has a unique "heritage." |
Jonathan Swift's "Modest Proposal"
The callous attitude that Malthus adopted was not new with him. In fact, 70 years before Malthus published his Essay on the Principle of Population, another clergyman, Jonathan Swift, wrote a blistering satire of the callous attitude he saw developing in England. Swift wrote "A Modest Proposal for Preventing the Children of Poor People in Ireland from Being a Burden to Their Parents or Country, and for Making Them Beneficial to the Public."
In it, he wrote that it is a "melancholy object" to see women begging everywhere, "followed by three, four, or six children, all in rags." Anyone who could find "fair, cheap and easy method of making these children sound and useful members of the commonwealth" should have a statue set up. He had a scheme that would not only end the scandal of having beggars everywhere, but would "contribute to the feeding, and partly to the clothing, of many thousands." Incidentally, the plan would also prevent abortions.
How does the remarkable proposal work? Swift's sarcastic proposal was cannibalism. "I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in London, that a young healthy child, well nursed, is, at a year old, a most delicious, nourishing, and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked or boiled; and I make no doubt that it will equally serve in a fricassee or a ragout." Infant's flesh might be somewhat more expensive than other meat, but it could be served at "merry meetings, particularly weddings and christenings." Thrifty shoppers can also use the skin to make "admirable gloves for ladies, and summer-boots for fine gentlemen."
Swift was not serious about cannibalism, but he was very serious about criticizing a callous attitude toward the poor. He was appalled that many comfortable people were ready to ignore the difficulties of their neighbors.
Charles Darwin
Charles Darwin (1809-1882) was a British scientist whose theories about evolution and natural selection became the foundation of modern biology. The idea of evolution, or the gradual development of life forms from earlier, simpler ancestors, was not new with Darwin; other scientists had explored it. In fact, Charles Darwin's grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, had proposed a theory of evolution in the 1790s. But Charles Darwin presented evolution in a new and more convincing way, including a theory about the mechanism that drives evolution, a process which he called "natural selection."
Darwin accepted the idea put forward by Malthus, that populations of living creatures including humans propagate geometrically, so that they are always pushing the limits of the food supply. But he went beyond Malthus, saying that when animals compete in this life-or-death struggle for food, the strongest and most fit survive, and the weak are weeded out. In his view, this brutal competition is the natural breeding process, selecting the best and letting the others die out. In this way, the "survival of the fittest" promotes steady progress: slow but steady evolution.
Darwin's put his ideas forward in 1859, in a book entitled On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. In this book, he wrote about the evolution of animals. Later, in 1871, he applied the same ideas explicitly to humanity, in The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex.
Darwin's work had huge implications for religious thought. His account of evolution assumes that the world is millions of years old, but many clerics of his time believed that the world was created in 4004 BC (as calculated by Archbishop James Ussher). His description of how various living creatures developed requires millions of years, but the Bible describes creation taking place in just six days. His theory of natural selection seems to diminish God's role in watching over and guiding the universe. Further, it seemed that Darwin erased or minimized the distinctions between animals and humans. Darwin closed his book on the preservation of favored races with a summary of the grandeur of evolution. Contemplating the variety of different living things, he found it interesting that they "have all been produced by laws acting around us." These laws included:
. . . a Ratio of Increase so high as to lead to a Struggle for Life, and as a consequence to Natural Selection, entailing Divergence of Character and the Extinction of less-improved forms. Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its various powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.One key question about the works of Thomas Malthus was the value that he placed on the individual person, as opposed to the whole race. Reading Darwin, you have to ask the same question. In the summary at the end of his book, Darwin writes (about animals), "And as natural selection works solely by and for the good of each being, all corporeal and mental endowments will tend to progress toward perfection." Clearly, Darwin takes the long view, and is really overlooking the individual even when he writes about "each being." Obviously, whatever natural selection -- meaning war and famine -- may do for the race as a whole, it is not good for the individual.
When Darwin enthused about the benefits of violence and death, he was writing about animals and lower life forms. But still you have to ask, if they are all improved steadily over time by war and famine, why should humans be different? And in fact, Darwin did not see a different set of rules for humans. In The Descent of Man, chapter II, Darwin wrote, "The early progenitors of man must also have tended, like all other animals, to have increased beyond their means of subsistence; they must, therefore, occasionally have been exposed to a struggle for existence, and consequently to the rigid law of natural selection." He was cautiously optimistic about the evidence that civilization was winning the struggle for life. He wrote, "There is great reason to suspect, as Malthus has remarked, that the reproductive power is actually less in barbarous, than in civilised races."
Darwin thought that war and famine played a role in keeping down the population of "savages," but saw another mechanism at work that Malthus had skipped. He wrote that Malthus "does not lay stress enough on what is probably the most important of all, namely infanticide, especially of female infants, and the habit of procuring abortion. These practices now prevail in many quarters of the world; and infanticide seems formerly to have prevailed, as Mr. M'Lennan has shewn on a still more extensive scale. These practices appear to have originated in savages recognising the difficulty, or rather the impossibility of supporting all the infants that are born."
Darwin's attitude toward infanticide and abortion was not simple. He did not approve of them any more than he approved of war and famine. However, he linked them with the beginning of rational thought: "If we look back to an extremely remote epoch, before man had arrived at the dignity of manhood, he would have been guided more by instinct and less by reason than are the lowest savages at the present time. Our early semi-human progenitors would not have practised infanticide or polyandry [having more than one husband]; for the instincts of the lower animals are never so perverted as to lead them regularly to destroy their own offspring." In other words, Darwin condemned infanticide, even though his theories led others to do it. Before turning to the work of Darwin's cousin, Francis Galton, we should take note of Darwin's attitude toward eugenics, which Galton championed. Some writers have worked hard to separate Darwin's views on evolution from his cousin's views on eugenics. However, in the closing paragraphs of his book The Descent of Man, Darwin quoted his cousin and endorsed his views.
Referring to humans, not to animals, he expressed the same concern that Plato had voiced: "Man scans with scrupulous care the character and pedigree of his horses, cattle, and dogs before he matches them; but when he comes to his own marriage he rarely, or never, takes any such care."
He noted that "free choice" can drive racial improvement: "He [man] is impelled by nearly the same motives as the lower animals, when they are left to their own free choice, though he is in so far superior to them that he highly values mental charms and virtues. On the other hand he is strongly attracted by mere wealth or rank."
He believed that a selection process could improve the human race, if a socially acceptable mechanism for selection could be found, but did not see clearly how the selection process might work: "Yet he might by selection do something not only for the bodily constitution and frame of his offspring, but for their intellectual and moral qualities. Both sexes ought to refrain from marriage if they are in any marked degree inferior in body or mind; but such hopes are Utopian and will never be even partially realised until the laws of inheritance are thoroughly known. Everyone does good service, who aids towards this end. When the principles of breeding and inheritance are better understood, we shall not hear ignorant members of our legislature rejecting with scorn a plan for ascertaining whether or not consanguineous marriages [marriages between close relatives] are injurious to man."
He accepted the view that measured value by wealth: "The advancement of the welfare of mankind is a most intricate problem: all ought to refrain from marriage who cannot avoid abject poverty for their children; for poverty is not only a great evil, but tends to its own increase by leading to recklessness in marriage. On the other hand, as Mr. Galton has remarked, if the prudent avoid marriage, whilst the reckless marry, the inferior members tend to supplant the better members of society."
He spoke about struggle among humans as the driving force for improvement. His words are not completely clear about what the "struggle" was supposed to look like; it is not clear that he meant to say that warfare and genocide are necessary tools in the improvement of the human race. His words may not have been as chilling in his own day as they are in retrospect. In any case, what he wrote was: "Man, like every other animal, has no doubt advanced to his present high condition through a struggle for existence consequent on his rapid multiplication. If he is to advance still higher, it is to be feared that he must remain subject to a severe struggle." It is worthwhile noting that his views about our ancestors are complimentary to some animals but insulting to some humans:
The main conclusion arrived at in this work, namely, that man is descended from some lowly organized form, will, I regret to think, be highly distasteful to many. But there can hardly be a doubt that we are descended from barbarians. The astonishment which I felt on first seeing a party of Fenians on a wild and broken shore will never be forgotten by me, for the reflection at once rushed into my mind -- such were our ancestors. These men were absolutely naked and bedaubed with paint, their long hair was tangled, their mouths frothed with excitement, and their expression was wild, startled, and distrustful. They possessed hardly any arts, and like wild animals lived on what they could catch; they had no government, and were merciless to everyone not of their own small tribe. He who has seen a savage in his native land will not feel much shame, if forced to acknowledge that the blood of some more humble creature flows in his veins. For my own part I would as soon be descended from that heroic little monkey, who braved his dreaded enemy in order to save the life of his keeper, or from that old baboon, who descending from the mountains, carried away in triumph his young comrade from a crowd of astonished dogs -- as from a savage who delights to torture his enemies, offers up bloody sacrifices, practices infanticide without remorse, treats his wives like slaves, knows no decency, and is haunted by the grossest superstitions.Given his views about the people of Tierra del Fuego, it is fair to wonder who he thinks has risen "to the very summit of the organic scale":
Man may be excused for feeling some pride at having risen, though not through his own exertions, to the very summit of the organic scale; and the fact of his having thus risen, instead of having been aboriginally placed there, may give him hope for a still higher destiny in the distant future. But we are not here concerned with hopes or fears, only with the truth as far as our reason permits us to discover it; and I have given the evidence to the best of my ability. We must, however, acknowledge, as it seems to me, that man with all his noble qualities, with sympathy which feels for the most debased, with benevolence which extends not only to other men but to the humblest living creature, with his god-like intellect which has penetrated into the movements and constitution of the solar system -- with all these exalted powers -- Man still bears in his bodily frame the indelible stamp of his lowly origin.Darwin spoke of our "lowly origin," but we don't have to give him the last word. By contrast, Psalm 8 says:
What is man that thou art mindful of him, or the son of man that thou dost take thought of him? And yet thou hast made him little less than the angels, and crowned him with glory and honor.
Discuss: Is the life of a poor man valuable? What were the views on this question held by Plato, Malthus and Darwin? Were their views like or unlike Christianity? Were their views like or unlike the American ideal?
Malthus on God and evilTo furnish the most unremitted excitements of this kind, and to urge man to further the gracious designs of Providence by the full cultivation of the earth, it has been ordained that population should increase much faster than food. This general law. . . undoubtedly produces much partial evil, but a little reflection may, perhaps, satisfy us, that it produces a great overbalance of good. . . . I should be inclined, therefore, as I have hinted before, to consider the world and this life as the mighty process of God, not for the trial, but for the creation and formation of mind, a process necessary to awaken inert, chaotic matter into spirit, to sublimate the dust of the earth into soul, to elicit an ethereal spark from the clod of clay. And in this view of the subject, the various impressions and excitements which man receives through life may be considered as the forming hand of his Creator, acting by general laws, and awakening his sluggish existence, by the animating touches of the Divinity, into a capacity of superior enjoyment. The original sin of man is the torpor and corruption of the chaotic matter in which he may be said to be born. The partial pain, therefore, that is inflicted by the supreme Creator, while he is forming numberless beings to a capacity of the highest enjoyments, is but as the dust of the balance in comparison of the happiness that is communicated, and we have every reason to think that there is no more evil in the world than what is absolutely necessary as one of the ingredients in the mighty process. It seems highly probable that moral evil is absolutely necessary to the production of moral excellence. Malthus's views on the poor The poor laws of England tend to depress the general condition of the poor in these two ways. Their first obvious tendency is to increase population without increasing the food for its support. A poor man may marry with little or no prospect of being able to support a family in independence. They may be said therefore in some measure to create the poor which they maintain, and as the provisions of the country must, in consequence of the increased population, be distributed to every man in smaller proportions, it is evident that the labour of those who are not supported by parish assistance will purchase a smaller quantity of provisions than before and consequently more of them must be driven to ask for support. Secondly, the quantity of provisions consumed in workhouses upon a part of the society that cannot in general be considered as the most valuable part diminishes the shares that would otherwise belong to more industrious and more worthy members, and thus in the same manner forces more to become dependent.
These excerpts are from the first edition of An Essay on the Principle of Population (1798) by Thomas Malthus.
|
