The Return of Eugenics
How?
The first period of Eugenics involved state-enforced reproductive laws by which those considered to be genetically “less fit” had certain reproductive restrictions imposed on them. These laws were also based on somewhat flawed methods and studies and largely inaccurate assumptions. The subsequent inability of this eugenics to achieve its desired ends coupled with the events of Nazi Germany caused eugenics of this form to become largely unpopular, especially in Western culture.
However, the biotechnological advancements now and on the horizon may lead to a return of eugenics, although this time in a different and more dangerous form. It will be different because it will likely not come about through state-enforced reproductive laws and, also, with the increasing understanding of the human brain and behavior and more accurate scientific bases, techniques and information technology, the achievement of certain desired outcomes will be more within the realm of possibility. However, it will be more dangerous because it will begin – in fact, it has already begun – in a much more subtle manner, in which we do not even think of it as eugenics but simply as breeding well. There will be three stages: the first will involve a focus on strictly medicine and cures for clear-cut diseases. The second will involve the broadening of focus to encompass the treatment of ‘conditions’ for which there is no clear demarcation for if and when the condition becomes pathogenic. Here is where the line between ‘fixing’ and ‘improving’ is blurred and the slippery slope towards eugenics begins. If genetic engineering becomes a reality, the extent of the effects of eugenics will be most clearly seen in the creation of a non-human race.
We have already moved into the second stage: We have covered significant ground with Tay Sachs disease, etc. and are still working to find cures for clearly defined diseases and viruses. However, we are also dealing with certain conditions that lend themselves to improper use of the drugs that are meant to treat them.
The Blurry Line Between 'Fixing' and 'Improving'
Prozac is an antidepressant that has garnered much fame and support in many circles. It blocks the reabsorption of serotonin by the nerve synapses and effectively increases the levels of serotonin in the brain. Serotonin is an important neurotransmitter and low levels are associated, in both humans and other primates, with poor impulse control and uncontrolled aggression against inappropriate targets, and in humans with depression, aggression, and suicide.
Today, Prozac and its relatives have been taken by approximately 28 million Americans, 10 percent of the entire population.
However, some studies have indicated that Prozac is not as effective as claimed and a number of books have argued that Prozac has a host of side-effects that its manufacturer has tried to cover up such as weight gain, tics, memory loss, sexual dysfunction, suicide, violence, and brain damage.
Although these may turn out to be true and the drug discontinued, the acceptance of the drug as safe and useable may lead to some interesting, somewhat disturbing consequences for Prozac is said to affect that most central of political emotions, the feeling of self-worth, or self-esteem.
As Socrates argued, in Plato’s Republic, there is a distinct part of humans that has an intersubjective demand for recognition by another human being of one’s “worth” or “dignity.” Economist Robert Frank refers to this in relation to economic interest in saying that it is a demand for status recognition that leads people to buy goods best referred to as positional goods. This demand for status recognition has also been demonstrated in political history, from rival princes who engage in battle, neither of whom needs the land or money, to more recent developments as the independence of Ukraine and Slovakia. (Fukuyama, 44-45)
Understanding that there are clearly millions of people in the world who suffer from depression and whose feelings of self-worth fall far below what they should be, and for them, Prozac is a “godsend,” Fukuyama asserts, “The normal, and morally acceptable way of overcoming low self-esteem was to struggle with oneself and with others, to work hard, to endure sometimes painful sacrifices, and finally to rise and be seen as having done so. The problem with self-esteem as it is understood in American pop psychology is that it becomes an entitlement, something everyone needs to have whether it is deserved or not. This devalues self-esteem and makes the quest for it self-defeating.” (Fukuyama, p 46)
The problem arises when self-esteem, in a sense, now comes in a bottle, and because low levels of serotonin do not demarcate a clear pathological condition, the door is open to “cosmetic pharmacology: that is, the taking of a drug not for its therapeutic value but simply because it makes one feel better than good. If a sense of self-esteem is so crucial to human happiness, who wouldn’t want more of it?” (Fukuyama, p. 46)
Similarly, with Ritalin, a stimulant created to help “treat” ADHD. In large doses, it is very similar to cocaine and so its use is somewhat restricted. However, during the 1990’s, Ritalin became one of the fastest-growing drugs used in high schools and on college campuses, as students discovered it helped them study for exams and pay better attention during class. The drug is also widely abused by people who are not diagnosed with ADHD. Elizabeth Wurtzel of Prozac fame describes chopping up and snorting forty Ritalin pills a day, which led to emergency room visits and detoxification therapy, at which she met mothers who stole their children’s pills for their own use.” (Fukuyama, p. 48)
Even today, this blurry line can be cause for serious concern, and the resulting dangers only increase with the advancement of the biotechnological revolution, particularly in the case of germ-line genetic engineering. It is germ-line genetic engineering that will most easily pave the way for a full-fledged return of eugenics.
