Eugenics and Family: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| (53 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
<h1><center>Eugenics, Economics, and the Family</center></h1> | |||
<h2> Modern Eugenics </h2> | |||
Society today seems to be engulfed with improving their current situations in life and modeling themselves after others. But what would a specific person constitute as perfect? It could be a physical feature to make them more attractive, an indestructible physice for dominating athletic events, or it could even be as subtle as making people see colors for the first time. When eugenics was brought into the mainstream by Nazi scientists, there was an outcry from people around the world about the Germans trying to create the perfect race. Now, the notion of creating a perfect person free of disease and flaws some how has become a good thing. Enhancements are starting off as a theoraputic device in order to help people with certain diseases, but as the American consumer is becoming more willing to pay for anything to help their image, it is only a matter of time before therapy turns to a necessity for the rich. | |||
[[Image:Judge.9.jpg]] | |||
Along with the monetary aspect of human enhancement, there is the moral and ethical questions of: | |||
* | *Why should we do it? | ||
*Positive Eugenics- concentrated on encouraging those deemed fit to reproduce in higher numbers. | *Is it worth it? | ||
*What are the risks involved for myself and others? | |||
<h2> Economics of Eugenics </h2> | |||
From a microeconomic perspective, eugenics has the ability to drastically shape the ways in which capital, the labor force and net products are obtained. Almost every person in the world has the desire to raise their respective standard of living but can not fully due to their genetic make-up. It is absolutely possible that by improving a certain percentage of the population, the standard of living gap between those genetically enhanced and those who are not can make society completely different. | |||
[[Image:Url.jpeg]] | |||
Society today is far from perfect and, even with all the technological advances that claim to improve genes, not everyone will have the opportunity to partake in it causing the income distribution to become more skewed. American citizens from many different ethnic backgrounds have disabilities that may restrict them from achieving a standard of living that some people take for granted: | |||
*Birth defects | |||
*Acquired mental/physical diseases | |||
*Tendencies towards violence, drug addiction, and alcohol | |||
[[Image:Image econ.jpg]] | |||
Although the welfare state in America supports these people, it is also allowing them to increase the population and inject more of these kinds of people into the world which many see as being a major problem with our society today. Two major points have arisen that some see as being a solution to this problem, but in reality, could hurt the economy more than it will help it: birth restrictions for the lower class and genetic engineering to increase the efficiency of the population. | |||
'''Birth Restrictions''' | |||
By restricting the lower class citizens from having a certain number, experts believe that this will eliminate the problems listed above. But there is a slight problem with this rationale; it would mean that the upper class citizens would need to have more children in order for an economy to have its resources being fully maximized. In the present state, many upper and middle class citizens have two incomes that they live off of. So, if there were to be restrictions for the lower class and a higher quota for the upper class, a parent (most likely the mother) will have to take time away from her career to attend to more children. A proposed sterilization of the lower class or forced birth by the upper class has a very strong social issue to address. Mainly, the only controlling body that can impose such an order would be the government which people will see as suspension of freedom. | |||
'''Genetic Engineering''' | |||
Unlike birth restrictions which need no real innovations to accomplish, genetic modification can be expensive and very exclusive. The innovations and procedures to create perfectly adapted children will not be for everyone. What if the middle and upper classes decide to have one genetically engineered child as opposed to four average children? The result would most likely create a society of those genetically engineered and those that are not making a society that has a high upper tier and a low lower tier represented by those who can not afford these innovations. These engineered children may someday find a cure for AIDS, but what about those that are not engineered? The higher class will be more efficient and may not need all the resources that there are today making it easier for them to survive on less. The blue collar job market will begin to dwindle and these kinds of jobs will be a premium, resulting in more a higher number of poor than before the genetic engineering age. | |||
The minimum wage debate has been a controversial topic for some time now. If many people today can barely survive on minimum wage without a genetically better upper class, what is to happen if genetic engineering were to occur? The standard of living for these individuals would drop even more because the genetically advanced would not need as much as they do today to live. Meaning, they will still demand luxury items, but everyday resources, will not be in high demand anymore. Not only will the upper class be better looking and smarter, but they will be more efficient humans, only taking what seems today to be the bare minimum. If the upper classes do not need as much in the future and the lower classes need the same as they do presently, there may not be enough for them to have or afford. With only the poorer population needing certain resources more, companies will find it difficult to make a profit because of the limited income their clients have. | |||
<h2> Rationale Behind the German Eugenics Movement </h2> | |||
A Bavarian physician by the name of Wilhelm Schallmayer (1857-1919) believed that the eugenics movement in Germany, prior to the rule of Hitler, would raise national efficiency and allow Germany to enter into a superior culture. Unlike many of the so-called eugenicists that followed him, Schallmayer did not fully believe in an Aryan race. He was more concerned with “saving the economically and socially better-situated classes from biological extinction and his desire to limit the number of unproductive types in the interest of national efficiency were a common denominator uniting both racist and non racist eugenicists within the German movement” (Weiss). | |||
Schallmayer focused his eugenic studies on three main areas with which to support his claim: | |||
'''Social Context'''- Around the time Schallmayer was studying eugenics, major industrial breakthroughs had taken place in Germany. With these industrial movements came a labor party brought about by Marxist theories which the upper classes viewed as a possible threat along with feeble-minded individuals. | |||
'''Medical Context'''- Some medical professionals, including Schallmayer, began to look at hereditary in the context of how individuals develop certain disorders which can negatively affect a society. Many physicians began to promote better gene matching between individuals in order for disorders such as mental illness and epilepsy to be estingished and the German state to grow stronger. | |||
'''Selectionist Context'''- Schallmayer began to develop a strong understanding to the work of Darwin. He was able to affiliate natural selection to human beings and look at how the individuals that did not mesh well with an industrial country were the unfit species. | |||
<h2> Eugenics and the Family </h2> | |||
The words "till death due us part" at one point in history actually meant something for all people. Today, the divorce rate is higher than ever and questions are posed as to whether it is lack of love or economic reasons that people are getting divorced. Studies have shown that people who get divorced are "of a much higher frequency of mental disease, a shorter expectation of life, and a high degree of sterility" (Popenoe). Looking at this it is easy to see, in a certain context, that the people getting divorced are genetically inferior to those that stay married. If two biologically inferior people get divorced, it is highly unlikely that either will remarry to biologically advanced people the second time around. | |||
[[image: FamilyAndEugenics2.jpg]] | |||
It is not true that all divorces take place with lower class citizens, but the economic benefits of staying married to someone in an upper class lifestyle seems much easier than in a lower class one. Unlike traditional eugenic feelings and thoughts, a racial backdrop does not always mean that certain kinds of people will get divorced. Two kinds of eugenics form from this nonracial way to look at marriage and divorce (Stern): | |||
'''Negative Eugenics'''- marriage restrictions, immigration quotas and compulsory sterilizations. | |||
'''Positive Eugenics'''- concentrated on encouraging those deemed fit to reproduce in higher numbers. | |||
It still has yet to be seen if the presence of a genetically modified child could save a marriage or a genetically modified couple could be the happiest together. In the case of a couple, it would almost be as if two robots were running the operation; not truly relying on love but on the concept of productivity to maximize their own utility. | |||
<h2> References </h2> | |||
Stern, Alexandra Minna. ''Eugenic Nation: Faults and Frontiers of Better Breeding in Modern America''. pp.150-181 | |||
Popenoe, Paul. "Divorce and Remarriage from a Eugenic Point of View". The Institute of Family Relations. pp 48-50 | |||
Weiss, Sheila Faith. "Wilhelm Schallmayer and the Logic of German Eugenics". pp. 33-45 | |||
Miller, Edward M. "Eugenics: Economics in the Long Run". 8 April 1997 | |||
Darwin, Major Leonard. "Eugenics in Relation to Economics and Statistics". pp. 1-13 | |||
{{testnav}} | |||
Latest revision as of 03:44, 3 January 2008
Eugenics, Economics, and the Family
Modern Eugenics
Society today seems to be engulfed with improving their current situations in life and modeling themselves after others. But what would a specific person constitute as perfect? It could be a physical feature to make them more attractive, an indestructible physice for dominating athletic events, or it could even be as subtle as making people see colors for the first time. When eugenics was brought into the mainstream by Nazi scientists, there was an outcry from people around the world about the Germans trying to create the perfect race. Now, the notion of creating a perfect person free of disease and flaws some how has become a good thing. Enhancements are starting off as a theoraputic device in order to help people with certain diseases, but as the American consumer is becoming more willing to pay for anything to help their image, it is only a matter of time before therapy turns to a necessity for the rich.
Along with the monetary aspect of human enhancement, there is the moral and ethical questions of:
- Why should we do it?
- Is it worth it?
- What are the risks involved for myself and others?
Economics of Eugenics
From a microeconomic perspective, eugenics has the ability to drastically shape the ways in which capital, the labor force and net products are obtained. Almost every person in the world has the desire to raise their respective standard of living but can not fully due to their genetic make-up. It is absolutely possible that by improving a certain percentage of the population, the standard of living gap between those genetically enhanced and those who are not can make society completely different.
Society today is far from perfect and, even with all the technological advances that claim to improve genes, not everyone will have the opportunity to partake in it causing the income distribution to become more skewed. American citizens from many different ethnic backgrounds have disabilities that may restrict them from achieving a standard of living that some people take for granted:
- Birth defects
- Acquired mental/physical diseases
- Tendencies towards violence, drug addiction, and alcohol
Although the welfare state in America supports these people, it is also allowing them to increase the population and inject more of these kinds of people into the world which many see as being a major problem with our society today. Two major points have arisen that some see as being a solution to this problem, but in reality, could hurt the economy more than it will help it: birth restrictions for the lower class and genetic engineering to increase the efficiency of the population.
Birth Restrictions
By restricting the lower class citizens from having a certain number, experts believe that this will eliminate the problems listed above. But there is a slight problem with this rationale; it would mean that the upper class citizens would need to have more children in order for an economy to have its resources being fully maximized. In the present state, many upper and middle class citizens have two incomes that they live off of. So, if there were to be restrictions for the lower class and a higher quota for the upper class, a parent (most likely the mother) will have to take time away from her career to attend to more children. A proposed sterilization of the lower class or forced birth by the upper class has a very strong social issue to address. Mainly, the only controlling body that can impose such an order would be the government which people will see as suspension of freedom.
Genetic Engineering
Unlike birth restrictions which need no real innovations to accomplish, genetic modification can be expensive and very exclusive. The innovations and procedures to create perfectly adapted children will not be for everyone. What if the middle and upper classes decide to have one genetically engineered child as opposed to four average children? The result would most likely create a society of those genetically engineered and those that are not making a society that has a high upper tier and a low lower tier represented by those who can not afford these innovations. These engineered children may someday find a cure for AIDS, but what about those that are not engineered? The higher class will be more efficient and may not need all the resources that there are today making it easier for them to survive on less. The blue collar job market will begin to dwindle and these kinds of jobs will be a premium, resulting in more a higher number of poor than before the genetic engineering age.
The minimum wage debate has been a controversial topic for some time now. If many people today can barely survive on minimum wage without a genetically better upper class, what is to happen if genetic engineering were to occur? The standard of living for these individuals would drop even more because the genetically advanced would not need as much as they do today to live. Meaning, they will still demand luxury items, but everyday resources, will not be in high demand anymore. Not only will the upper class be better looking and smarter, but they will be more efficient humans, only taking what seems today to be the bare minimum. If the upper classes do not need as much in the future and the lower classes need the same as they do presently, there may not be enough for them to have or afford. With only the poorer population needing certain resources more, companies will find it difficult to make a profit because of the limited income their clients have.
Rationale Behind the German Eugenics Movement
A Bavarian physician by the name of Wilhelm Schallmayer (1857-1919) believed that the eugenics movement in Germany, prior to the rule of Hitler, would raise national efficiency and allow Germany to enter into a superior culture. Unlike many of the so-called eugenicists that followed him, Schallmayer did not fully believe in an Aryan race. He was more concerned with “saving the economically and socially better-situated classes from biological extinction and his desire to limit the number of unproductive types in the interest of national efficiency were a common denominator uniting both racist and non racist eugenicists within the German movement” (Weiss).
Schallmayer focused his eugenic studies on three main areas with which to support his claim:
Social Context- Around the time Schallmayer was studying eugenics, major industrial breakthroughs had taken place in Germany. With these industrial movements came a labor party brought about by Marxist theories which the upper classes viewed as a possible threat along with feeble-minded individuals.
Medical Context- Some medical professionals, including Schallmayer, began to look at hereditary in the context of how individuals develop certain disorders which can negatively affect a society. Many physicians began to promote better gene matching between individuals in order for disorders such as mental illness and epilepsy to be estingished and the German state to grow stronger.
Selectionist Context- Schallmayer began to develop a strong understanding to the work of Darwin. He was able to affiliate natural selection to human beings and look at how the individuals that did not mesh well with an industrial country were the unfit species.
Eugenics and the Family
The words "till death due us part" at one point in history actually meant something for all people. Today, the divorce rate is higher than ever and questions are posed as to whether it is lack of love or economic reasons that people are getting divorced. Studies have shown that people who get divorced are "of a much higher frequency of mental disease, a shorter expectation of life, and a high degree of sterility" (Popenoe). Looking at this it is easy to see, in a certain context, that the people getting divorced are genetically inferior to those that stay married. If two biologically inferior people get divorced, it is highly unlikely that either will remarry to biologically advanced people the second time around.
It is not true that all divorces take place with lower class citizens, but the economic benefits of staying married to someone in an upper class lifestyle seems much easier than in a lower class one. Unlike traditional eugenic feelings and thoughts, a racial backdrop does not always mean that certain kinds of people will get divorced. Two kinds of eugenics form from this nonracial way to look at marriage and divorce (Stern):
Negative Eugenics- marriage restrictions, immigration quotas and compulsory sterilizations.
Positive Eugenics- concentrated on encouraging those deemed fit to reproduce in higher numbers.
It still has yet to be seen if the presence of a genetically modified child could save a marriage or a genetically modified couple could be the happiest together. In the case of a couple, it would almost be as if two robots were running the operation; not truly relying on love but on the concept of productivity to maximize their own utility.
References
Stern, Alexandra Minna. Eugenic Nation: Faults and Frontiers of Better Breeding in Modern America. pp.150-181
Popenoe, Paul. "Divorce and Remarriage from a Eugenic Point of View". The Institute of Family Relations. pp 48-50
Weiss, Sheila Faith. "Wilhelm Schallmayer and the Logic of German Eugenics". pp. 33-45
Miller, Edward M. "Eugenics: Economics in the Long Run". 8 April 1997
Darwin, Major Leonard. "Eugenics in Relation to Economics and Statistics". pp. 1-13
