A New Eugenics?

Kevin Drum, scoffing at the suggestion that contemporary progressives might be enabling eugenics:

Now, here's the thing: Glenn Beck, Yuval Levin, and Ross Douthat didn't come up with this stuff themselves. But it didn't just pop up out of nowhere either. It's way too abstruse for that. Rather, some bright boy or girl in the conservative movement dreamed this up and now it's being run up the flagpole to see if anyone salutes. If it gets some attention, it'll be rolled out to a wider audience.

So whose bright idea was this? Is there a proud parent out there who wants to take credit?

Leaving aside the hilarious idea that I, Yuval Levin, and Glenn Beck (!!) are all getting fed the same talking points from some Central Command deep in the Republican Noise Machine, has Kevin Drum ever, you know, read any right-of-center magazines in the last ten years or so? Or any magazines at all? Has he read any Leon Kass, or Francis Fukuyama? (Or Will Saletan, for that matter?) Conservatives - and not only conservatives - have been fretting about eugenic-ish tendencies in the contemporary West (and elsewhere) for as long as I've been following politics. And the trends that the Right dislikes find their defenders, or at least their enablers, in two camps: bio-libertarians who welcome our transhuman future, and progressives who, whether they welcome transhumanism or not, are committed to an unfettered right to abortion, with all the consequences that entails.

Now, look - I assume that Drum is untroubled by the scale of pre-natal eugenics around the globe. I assume that he thinks that the elimination of the genetically unfit in the womb isn't something we should be worried about, because the state isn't involved and anyway fetuses aren't human beings. I assume that he's on roughly the same page as Johann Hari, who makes the case for "liberal eugenics" here on the grounds that it is "entered into by parents and it is motivated by love." That's fine: Just say so, and spare me the "eugenics? what eugenics?" hand-waving, and the pretense that conservatives are just making up crazy fantasies to smear liberals. A difference of opinion about bioethics isn't a smear.

(Though yes, Glenn Beck is certainly crazy.)

Comments

I follow the news. I pay attention to what the Democratic presidential candidates say. I read liberal blogs and liberal columnists. I'm familiar at least superficially with left-liberal political philosophers like John Rawls and Michael Walzer. Maybe I'm missing something, but I have never seen the slightest endorsement of eugenics by anybody on the left side of the political spectrum. It's not part of the left's agenda, and it never has been.

Posted by Stanley Jacobs | July 30, 2007 9:39 AM

So just to be clear, you're saying that if one is pro-choice, they are also endorsing eugenics. This isn't snark, I just want to be clear as to your point here.

Posted by Dan | July 30, 2007 9:43 AM

Your guide to writing a blog post:

1. Find something that has some support on the fringes of the left. Maybe it's something kooky, maybe it's something that just isn't a big deal or doesn't have much support in the mainstream, whatever

2. Try to link it to abortion, Nazis, communism, or all three

3. Claim that liberals must logically support it because they love abortion / love appeasement / love communism

4. Decry liberals and the Democratic party for supporting it

Rinse & repeat!

Posted by m | July 30, 2007 10:03 AM

I also want to be clear on a point. What's the argument against augmenting our undesigned bodies to decrease error and increase quality of life, assuming we figure out the genetic programming language well enough to do so? What are your premises? Since the consequences of legally-mandated naturalism are far-reaching and extreme, isn't your position the worst kind of theoretical self-indulgence?

We're all sub-optimal complex composites, however you believe we got this way. And you think the bugs are what, virtues? Essential features? God's will? Iron-clad laws of nature that must be reinforced by law? Seriously, please explain to me why being vulnerable to horrible diseases or having an 75 IQ is essential to being human.

And I'm not talking about eliminating extant people with those traits. I'm talking about adjusting the biological barriers to preempt those types of traits -- should the responsible party choose to do so.

Posted by JA | July 30, 2007 10:23 AM

Whether some women might abort Downs fetuses--bracketing for a moment whether this puts them morally in the company of Hitler--is not relevant to whether women should have a right to abortion. Unless, of course, you basically think of women as children.

Posted by BP | July 30, 2007 10:29 AM

Does anyone else find Ross's writing on abortion incredibly frustrating? He will go on and on with meta-analysis of the abortion debate, but he never actually makes his own case for banning abortion. He's said ad nauseam that religious arguments have a place in the public square but he never actually makes them himself. Does he believe that the instant two sets of DNA combine in one cell, God endows it with an immaterial soul? Why doesn't he ever say so?

Posted by BP | July 30, 2007 10:34 AM

He will go on and on with meta-analysis of the abortion debate, but he never actually makes his own case for banning abortion

uh, have you ever seen a fruitful debate about the merits of banning or not banning abortion? perhaps ross doesn't want to argue about it because he knows that the differences are based on prior normative assumptions which really are inelastic.

as for "eugenics," it's happening, though that depends on how you define it. it isn't necessarily gov. mandated, but cheap genetic testing and screening will make selective abortion even more ubiquitous than it is now. i assume couples will be able to look up "quality of life" indices based on their child's "expected" characteristics. finally, if we do have universal health care i assume that at some point it won't all be voluntary, that the people holding the purse strings will expect a couple which comes back with 5 positive tests for diseases which make the likelihood of a viable and full term pregnancy very low to "do the right thing."

Posted by razib | July 30, 2007 10:44 AM

Government-run health-care complicates these issues.

Should we get there, it's plausible that a "substantial effects" test will be used by the courts to determine the scope of Congress's power "to mitigate social cost" (Analogically, see U.S. v. Lopez). If that is the case, then yes, you will see massive amounts of regulation regarding the parents' prenatal decisions.

Posted by JA | July 30, 2007 11:06 AM

It should go without saying, but apparently does not, that many "Western Progressives" are just as appalled as conservatives by the trend toward sex-selection abortions in places such as India and China. The root problems, however, are the archaic cultural traditions that lead to women being undervalued in those societies. This is a crisis of Chinese and Indian cultural conservatism, not Western Progressivism.

Down Syndrome children, and other hereditary conditions that place a tremendous burden on the parents, are a rather different matter. One can make the case that a combination of genetic testing and abortion rights will lead to unintended "eugenic" consequences. But this raises difficult ethical questions. Is there any good reason why terrible genetic diseases such as Tay-Sachs should NOT be bred out of the human genome? Or why a person doomed to die from Huntington's Disease shouldn't be able to choose to have children who don't carry the gene? There's a general consensus outside of crazified libertarian circles that "designer children" are a bad idea, but it's far from clear where exactly the line should be drawn.

I would never advocate a state campaign to promote aborting Down Syndrome children. There are a number of parents, including liberal blogger Michael Berube, who have chosen to keep such children and raise them in loving families, and I have tremendous respect for them. But I wouldn't want the state to force that difficult choice on parents, either.

Or to put it another way, anti-abortion rhetoric tends to promote adoption over abortion, but how many pro-lifers are willing to adopt a Down Syndrome child?

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | July 30, 2007 11:11 AM

perhaps ross doesn't want to argue about it because he knows that the differences are based on prior normative assumptions which really are inelastic.

Yeah, that's exactly how I feel, but I'm not the one who wants the state to criminalize abortion.

Posted by BP | July 30, 2007 11:14 AM

Douthat is utterly missing Kevin's point. People who used to call themselves liberals now call themselves progressives. This change has nothing to do with eugenics, and everything to do with the word liberal being tarred with negative connotations.

Now right-wingers are dredging the historical record to come up with reasons why the word "progressive" ought to also have negative meanings. This exercise has two purposes: slandering the dead and slandering the living. The historical progressive movement had a lot of positive features, and some negative ones. It was mostly a reaction to the excesses of the unregulated market and the extreme inequality of the Gilded Age. Pretending that progressivism was, and is, about eugenics is simply arguing in bad faith about a historical tangent to score points against contemporary political opponents.

Posted by Marc | July 30, 2007 11:26 AM

Marc,

I think Ross gets that point, but that doesn't mean we can't ask what, if anything, modern "progressives" stand for and whether there is a connection to the past. I mean, if Hillary and Edwards decided to start calling themselves Democratic Socialists, you could expect some people to blog about it . . .

Posted by J Mann | July 30, 2007 12:36 PM

The aspect of eugenics that I deeply fear (and am slightly obsessed with) is the genetic determinist aspect, a la Mr. Saletan, who comes closer and closer everyday to simply saying that a persons life is the product of his genes. People to slide over from predisposition to destiny very easily.

Posted by Freddie | July 30, 2007 12:42 PM

When Ross starts calling the actions of people when choosing a mate to discriminate between people they think are good looking and smart vs. those that are not "eugenics" then I'll find him consistent. Until then, the use of the term just seems pointlessly inflammatory. I've never heard any liberal advocate for a policy of pushing the gene pool in any particular direction: the most anyone has argued is for allowing parents to choose, and even that is within limits and is not immune from CRITICISM over their choices. The choice of individuals to not have down's syndrome babies or Tay-Sachs babies is not anymore Naziesque eugenics then is Am-I-Hot-Or-Not.

Ross's unwillingness to directly state and argue for positions on this issue is actually pretty common: there's a lot more to snipe at just trying to attack the other side for alleged inconsistencies without exposing yourself to the same debate.

Plus, when people like Ramesh DO try to explain their reasoning on why, say, stem cell research is bad, it comes out just looking plain old silly (mostly because it tries to tiptoe around the actual motivations and justifications, which are in Ramesh's case religious).

Posted by plunge | July 30, 2007 12:55 PM

I prefer to let people say what they believe rather than telling them what they believe. I see no mention of eugenics issues from the left, not even tangentially. On the left, stem-cell research is favored because folks believe that it will help to cure disease - not because they want to favor or disfavor births for one sort of people or another.
Nor was eugenics a central focus of the historical progressive movement; it focused on correcting market excesses and the rights of workers.

More to the point, the relabelling from liberal to progressive is entirely unrelated to what actual progressives of the early 20th century believed. It's simply a rebranding exercise.

Posted by Marc | July 30, 2007 1:43 PM

Okay, Ross, I am a progressive liberal and a voracious reader. I read both conservative and liberal arguments. The fact that I am commenting on your blog is proof of that.

And I gotta say you are being awfully obtuse if not disingenuous. Your argument amounts to: we are arguing about bioethics, there's a pro-life and a pro-eugenics stance. Its either one or the other. Why can't liberals just admit that they favor eugenics?

Liberals are aware of the eugenics critique. The reason that they reject the label is that they reject the framing of your argument. We don't think we are advocating eugenics, we see eugenics as morally distinct from our position. Saddling liberals with that label is an attempt to smuggle in moral positions that liberals don't agree with without actually arguing about them.

This is on par with pro-lifers arguing that pro-choicers are committing a Holocaust against the unborn. They might argue something like:

I assume that he's on roughly the same page as Joseph Mengele, who makes the case for a "liberal Holocaust" here on the grounds that it is "entered into by parents and it is motivated by love." That's fine: Just say so, and spare me the "holocaust? what holocaust?" hand-waving, and the pretense that conservatives are just making up crazy fantasies to smear liberals. A difference of opinion about committing genocide isn't a smear.

But of course that is exactly what it is. To judge progressives as eugenics advocates is to make a normative judgment, one which progressives disagree with. If you want to make that argument fine, but you certainly can't assume agreement that is not there and then become frustrated when liberals proceed to disagree you with about a position they never agree to in the first place.

Posted by Joseph | July 30, 2007 2:00 PM

"More to the point, the relabelling from liberal to progressive is entirely unrelated to what actual progressives of the early 20th century believed. It's simply a rebranding exercise."

Pretty much. Just as dredging up "eugenics" has nothing to do with what either progressives or liberals believe, then or now. It also is simply a "rebranding" exercise, and a blatantly dishonest one at that, which was precisely Kevin's point.

Posted by PaulB | July 30, 2007 2:01 PM

Re: "I would never advocate a state campaign to promote aborting Down Syndrome children."

Personally, I think its immoral not to abort a Down Syndrome fetus. When you do so, you are potentially preventing that child "slot" from being "filled" a year or two later by a genetically healthy individual. For pragmatic reasons, I don't know if the state should go around actually promoting these actions, though.

Ross seems to be basing his opposition to selective abortions on the fact that it involves abortions, not that it is selective. Suppose some advanced technology came along that could select out genetic problems before the sperm actually entered the egg? Would that suddenly make selecting against genetic problems hunky dory?

Posted by Jim W | July 30, 2007 2:02 PM

I think the word eugenics is being used here is a rather expansive way. When I hear "eugenics" I think of some deliberate and coercive public policy to improve the species: forced sterilizations or the awful stuff the Nazis did. If voluntary choice not to have genetically damaged chioldren is "eugenics" then is voluntary charity to the poor welfare?

Re: Government-run health-care complicates these issues.

Government-run healthcare is not on anyone's agenda, except maybe Dennis Kucinich and a handful of Naderites. Universal healthcare is not a synonym of "socialized medicine" and if we do finally achieve that long overdue goal, I suspect it will retain a very large role for the private market. Doctors and hospitals will not become direct government employees (as in Britain's NHS) nor will insurance companise go the way of the dodo.

Posted by JonF | July 30, 2007 2:23 PM

Doesn't this mean that in order to minimize loss of potential life that we have a moral duty to keep all our fertile females pregnant? This may be just what we need to stem the Muslim demographic tide.

Posted by Wil Tenino | July 30, 2007 2:25 PM

Doesn't this mean that in order to minimize loss of potential life that we have a moral duty to keep all our fertile females pregnant? This may be just what we need to stem the Muslim demographic tide.

Wil Tenino, you are awesome.

Posted by BP | July 30, 2007 2:32 PM

Another person worried about the new eugenics: Habermas. Not exactly a clever boy or girl, and not exactly a conservative.

Posted by Reihan | July 30, 2007 2:35 PM

I think Ross gets that point, but that doesn't mean we can't ask what, if anything, modern "progressives" stand for and whether there is a connection to the past.

Of all the stances of the old progressives, eugenics has to be the one most unrelated to modern progressive policies. Dragging it out of its moldy Victorian closet is just a way to slime the left. SOP for conservatives of course.

Posted by Col Bat Guano | July 30, 2007 2:36 PM

Also, eugenics began as a voluntary movement, and it did not begin in Nazi Germany. The intellectual history of eugenics goes pretty far back.

Let's keep in mind: selective abortion and infanticide are practiced in India. This is entirely voluntary. This is *not* eugenics, because it is not about "perfecting" humanity. But I think we can acknowledge that this is somewhere beyond a merely unfortunate private decision, or at least I hope we can.

Aborting children with down's syndrome is rather different. It really *is* about having a "more perfect," or more acceptable, human child.

Now, I happen not to think this kind of eugenics is worse than aborting female fetuses, or murdering infant girls; rather, I think all of these practices are pretty abhorrent. But you can see why some people, Ross and Yuval Levin and Michael Sandel and Jurgen Habermas included, are worried about this phenomenon.

Posted by Reihan | July 30, 2007 2:40 PM

I think that Ross is partly right, and partly wrong. I think he's wrong, in that the majority of decent people on the left, outside of a few intellectuals with ghoulish dreams, would abhor the idea of eugenics as much as he does. I also think that this whole 'transhuman' business is a disease of prosperity, which will be cured when the age of prosperity ends. I think that sometime in the next hundred years, natural resource shortages will cause a collapse of the world economy, and at that point neither scientists nor the general public will have time to worry about selective breeding, they will be too busy trying to think up measures to keep our food and energy supplies afloat. A world economic collapse, and an end to the constant growth trend of the last 500 years, will bring its own problems, but also will end some of the dangerous tendencies of this age, 'transhumanism' among them.

Transhumanism, though (this is the first time I've heard this word) is an abominable idea no matter how few its adherents or how unlikely the possibility of attaining it. The ultimate thing that's wrong about it is that it seeks to make us absolute masters of our own destiny. It seeks to create a world without pain, suffering, or death. I don't think that human beings can nor should seek to enjoy such a world; there is something to be said for acceptance of one's limitations and for what fate brings us, rather than trying to exert total control over life. Simone Weil said that the ultimate acts of submission to God, lie in the acceptance of hard labor, suffering and death. Modern society, through capitalist economics and 'transhumanist' ethics, seeks to do away with all three.

The virtues that we admire in each other all stem from struggle against our own limitations, against evil, and against suffering and death. Courage is only possible in a world with danger, generosity is only possible in a world of (relative) scarcity, strength is only possible in a world that needs to be struggled against, and as Christ reminded us, love reaches its highest expression though sacrificial death (John 15:13) which is only possible in a world where death is ever-present. To try to do away with suffering is ultimately to try to do away with virtue, which is the ultimate end of both individual and social life.

None of this, by the way, means that we should not strive to create better social and economic systems, that do away with man's exploitation of man. But there is a difference between trying to do away with 'moral' evil, the evil ways in which people treat one another- e.g. slavery, unjust economic systems, war crimes, genocide, unfair distribution of wealth- (and even that can't ever be done away with entirely) and 'natural' evil. And that's leaving aside, of course, the question of whether inherent limitations in the human lifespan are a bad thing at all, which I don't think they are.

Posted by Hector Dauphin-Gloire | July 30, 2007 2:43 PM

If you're so firmly against the destruction of pre-implantation embryos, what is your stance on in vitro fertilization? Far more embryos are destroyed in that procedure, and a huge number are stuck in freezers for later destruction, but I find most anti-abortion and anti-stem cell activists refuse to denounce IVF, or to propose legislation (similar to Italy's) crippling IVF. Must be something about the cute babies, and the desparate couples.

P.S. I suspect that many of you haven't known a couple whose fetus was diagnosed with Downs. I have, and it was agonizing for them even in a liberal pro-choice haven. Anyone who thinks we're going to see a new eugenics movement targeting any differences less serious than catastrophic disability is just ignorant of (1) our state of scientific knowledge and (2) the emotional difficulties (and expenses and opportunity costs) of terminating a pregnancy or even of selecting embryos prior to implantation.

Posted by Warren Terra | July 30, 2007 2:53 PM

When I hear "eugenics" I think of some deliberate and coercive public policy to improve the species: forced sterilizations or the awful stuff the Nazis did.

Eugenics is simply the notion that the human species can be improved by selecting the right genes. This can be accomplished via various routes: negative selection (via abortion or sterilization) or positive selection (via genetic engineering), coercive state actions or private choices.

It's true enough that the current progressive movement doesn't favor eugenics: the point is that many of their moral/political/policy positions are conducive towards de facto eugenics, even if that's not what they intend. For example, LaFollete says,

It should go without saying, but apparently does not, that many "Western Progressives" are just as appalled as conservatives by the trend toward sex-selection abortions in places such as India and China.

The question is, why are Western Progressives appalled by this, and what arguments can they marshal to explain why it is wrong? For 40 years, they've argued that the right to abortion is a fundamental right, and that there is nothing that can impinge upon a woman's right to choose an abortion. Now some of them are arguing that only some reasons are acceptable ones for having an abortion. But they act bewildered when those who oppose the unlimited license to abortion find this position contradictory.

Liberals regularly accuse Conservatives or Republicans of being insensitive regarding the consequences of their preferred policies. For example, they argue that lowering taxes and/or lowering government spending will hurt the poor. Even though Republicans argue that a) they have other motivations for lowering taxes or spending, and b) these actions will not in fact hurt the poor, liberals still claim that Republicans "don't care about the poor". But when the negative consequences of a policy they favor, such as an unlimited license to abortion, become apparent, they insist that that doesn't count because that negative consequence isn't something they want to happen as a result of their policy. So the fact that progressives don't want eugenics to occur absolves them for actually having to face the fact that some policies that they favor in fact lead to eugenic practices.

Posted by Mike S. | July 30, 2007 3:01 PM

the ultimate acts of submission to God, lie in the acceptance of hard labor, suffering and death.

Easy for God to say, s/he doesn't have to do any of them!

Posted by Flavor Flavius Julianus | July 30, 2007 3:13 PM

To reiterate, I'd say that the problem that liberals or progressives have with what's going on in India isn't the abortion, its the selection. There's nothing hypocritical about this. Now, it just so happens that, today, the only reliable way to select a sex is through abortion.

But, in the future there may be other ways to do it. If it doesn't involve aborting a fetus, then is it ok for the pro-life people out there if 75% of people to select to have a male child?

In their arguments, people need to state what they're against: abortion or selection?

As for people who agonize over whether to abort a Down Syndrom fetus. I have to say, I don't understand what the dilemma is supposed to be. What's wrong with aborting it, and trying again? Imagine all the potential genetically healthy children who've never had a chance because of those selfish parents who didn't abort Down Syndrom fetuses when they had a chance, and as a result could never afford (emotionally and/or financially) to have another child?

Posted by Jim W | July 30, 2007 3:14 PM

Mike: not a particularly good argument. Just because you believe that someone should have the right to terminate a pregnancy (at least prior to a certain point) does not mean that you cannot be critical of their reasons or the effects of sexism society-wise. There is no contradiction here: you have simply delivered either yet another tedious straw man, or shown an embarrassing lack of ability at comprehending arguments beyond me tarzan, you jane.

Posted by plunge | July 30, 2007 3:18 PM

Aborting children with down's syndrome is rather different. It really *is* about having a "more perfect," or more acceptable, human child.

This *is not* about lubricating acceptance into society. It's about rejecting biological fatalism.

Would you argue against vaccination on the moral grounds that it's an effort to make children "more perfect." Why not? The emergence and subsequent utility of vaccination spring from exactly the same source as in utero genetic modification -- both involve figuring out the rules of internal biological systems, then manipulating them for human advantage.

Perhaps you object to cosmetic changes? But how do you define cosmetic traits? Is intelligence a cosmetic trait? Beauty? Height? Health?

Maybe. But the arguments are not in your favor. Humans are evolved animals whose relevant environment has become each other (yes, yes, the environments themselves are highly variable). A child is either well-calibrated or ill-calibrated for this social environment -- whereas a stupid, ugly child is disadvantaged almost completely, an intelligent, beautiful child is well-adapted (controlling for other factors like mental illness). Life expectancy, life quality, social status, mate selection -- these are environmental boons to be won or lost by individual humans. This is a fact, however coarse and chaffing.

So intelligence, beauty, health -- these are not cosmetic traits after all. Like the cat's claws or the bat's sonar, they are highly useful tools for the environment in which humans find themselves.

The problem for me is this: objections on this score are entirely moral, and moral judgments are fundamentally intuitive. First you get the intuition about cause and consequence, and then you get the valuing (emotional underscoring) of one outcome over another. Only belatedly does reason enter the picture -- and then only to justify the original intuition. Why is that a problem? It's a problem because it tends to create an entrenchment of reason around an otherwise indefensible principle. Biological fatalism, for instance.

Now, you could say that the moral judgment of other people is itself an environmental factor to take into account, and if you said it, you'd be right. If the morals of the people embraced biological fatalism, its policy antithesis would not be viable. Fair enough. But that is not an argument for biological fatalism. It is an argument for its intractability.

Perhaps you fear the slippery slope. Again, fair enough. Then let's have an argument about parameters, an argument based in fact and reason, not morality. The latter is only necessary when you don't have enough information on the former (this is true; a robust morality is derivable from a totalizing Archimedean point).

Posted by JA | July 30, 2007 3:47 PM

I just thought you'd been misunderstood. Thanks for making it clear that you're just an idiot.

Eugenicists were the ones who constantly worried about the purity and preservation of the white race. Tell me, which party seems to be concerned about that these days?

Posted by TR | July 30, 2007 4:23 PM

The question is, why are Western Progressives appalled by this, and what arguments can they marshal to explain why it is wrong? For 40 years, they've argued that the right to abortion is a fundamental right, and that there is nothing that can impinge upon a woman's right to choose an abortion. Now some of them are arguing that only some reasons are acceptable ones for having an abortion. But they act bewildered when those who oppose the unlimited license to abortion find this position contradictory.

This really isn't hard to grasp.

1. Abortion is legal in many countries, including many countries with sexist, illiberal cultures.
2. Legalized abortion only leads to a marked decline in female births in countries with sexist, illiberal cultures.
3. Therefore, this problem is not a function of progressive abortion policies, it is a function of sexist, illiberal cultures.
4. Conservatives in this country want to ban abortion for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with the decline in female births in India, which is why progressives don't pay much attention to their bad-faith arguments on this subject.

It isn't a matter of some reasons for having an abortion being acceptable and others unacceptable. It's a matter of individuals having the freedom to make choices whether or not we like their reasons. It's also an example of how choices that are acceptable on an individual level can generate negative externalities in the broader community... in this case, a shortage of female births in certain parts of the world. It may be necessary for India to set policies that discourage sex-selection abortions. I see no evidence that this is the case in the US.

I do believe this country will eventually have to place some restrictions on the use of biotechnology to "engineer" children. But since you're just using this concern as a disingenuous excuse to ban abortion, that is neither here nor there.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | July 30, 2007 4:32 PM

So if these newly branded "progressives" are (as you argue) for pre-natal eugenics via abortion, then it's fair to say that conservatives are for post-natal eugenics via their economic and social policies.

After all, the right's policies have the habit of rewarding the already rich (most of whom are white), don't factor in taking care of the poor and sick (they're anti social assistance programs and universal health care), and they have been against civil rights legislation time and again.

Of course, no one has yet to offer a single shred of evidence from any modern progressive that proves he/she favors eugenics (the real version, not Ross' weak interpretation of it).

So it looks like this is all yet another strawman erected by the right to slander the left.

Posted by Mark D | July 30, 2007 4:33 PM

Sorry, Ross, but explicit advocacy of eugenics as a political policy is still the prerogative of the crackpot right, however much you might like to redefine it as a consequence of progressivism. See, for instance, this.

Posted by David Lieberman | July 30, 2007 5:06 PM

Since the postwar period, both the public and the scientific communities have associated eugenics with Nazi abuses, such as enforced racial hygiene, human experimentation, and the extermination of undesired population groups.

So, te;ll me again how this is not a smear?

Posted by Tiparillo | July 30, 2007 5:33 PM

Vaccination is eugenics: polio is a natural condition given by God. Trying to reduce suffering is wrong because it takes us away from agreeing that Catholicism is correct. Caring about humans qua humans is evil because, er, something. It's far better to simply apply arbitrary propositions as literally as possible without any idea what morality is trying to achieve, other than obedience to principle in and of itself.

Wait, who were the nihilists again?

Posted by plunge | July 30, 2007 5:33 PM

Ross Asshat rides again!

You're on a roll, baby!

Posted by Neocock | July 30, 2007 6:11 PM

Mike S opines:

It's true enough that the current progressive movement doesn't favor eugenics: the point is that many of their moral/political/policy positions are conducive towards de facto eugenics, even if that's not what they intend.

But when you describe eugenics as "the notion that the human species can be improved by selecting the right genes," your definition depends on either someone organizing everyone or the entire group deciding together to pursue this goal. You can't have "de facto eugenics any more than you can have a de facto symphony, ballet or basketball tournament.

Posted by Steve | July 30, 2007 6:23 PM

This is so odd--I've been a left over for over twenty years now and a prof of Am. history ad haven't see eugenics arguments from progressives since the Scopes trial. It' true, you found Eugeics among progressives then, and among conservatives

You know where you see eugenics arguments today? From conservatives who worry about declining IQ rates. Remember "the Bell Curve?" Or implied int e work of guys like Samuel Huntington, who keeps equating democracy with "white." all those undesirables breeding....

It's just a rebranding exercise, nothing more. Abortion is not the same as Eugenics. It's objectionable for a different set of reasons

Posted by h.c. carey | July 30, 2007 6:57 PM

If genetic engineering reaches a point where we can design babies to have certain traits, such as high IQ and good looks, than every reasonable parent with the means will ensure that their future child receives this engineering, even if it means a higher chance of the fetus being destroyed.

This is so fundamental to human nature that anyone opposed to it will be marginalized to the point of obscurity.

Posted by Al | July 30, 2007 7:04 PM

You either don't understand what Down's Syndrome is or don't understand what "eugenics" means.

Down's Syndrome is ordinarily not a hereditary disease--it results from a developmental error in reproductive cells.

"Eugenics" means wanting to control human reproduction in order to improve the hereditary qualities of the human race.

Because Down's Syndrome is not a hereditary condition, eugenics has nothing whatever to say about whether a Down's syndrome fetus ought to be aborted.

Your reasoning really seems to be on the order of,"Eugenics is bad; abortion is bad; therefore abortion is eugenics."

Posted by rea | July 30, 2007 7:46 PM

Well, abortion is bad, but not due to it's association to eugenics. Now, it is humorous to note that Margaret Sanger *was* a proponent of eugenics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger), but thats just good comedy. The sad fact is that abortion in this day and age is sad and inhuman.

That being said, I don't think it can be outlawed. Women being what they are, they have little objectivity when it comes to abortion, and the best retort they can field is "you're a man! you don't understand". True. Therefore I will not support a ban on abortion.

However I will choose to *judge* women who have had voluntary abortions (anything short of serious harm to the mother, or death, or severe malformation of the child). I do not feel that dressing you child in t-shirts that say "My Mommy beleives in abortion" is a *good* thing. Dunno - I'm nuts that way.

I mean really - when they came out with the term "emergency contraception" I asked (like many others) did that require "emergency sex" first?

Posted by Liam Colvin | July 30, 2007 8:39 PM

I just love morons who oppose aborting Down's children. I suggest that those idiots immediately open their homes to the persons, now adults, with Down's whose parents have died. You see, when you have a child with Down's, there is not an expiration date. Having a child with Down's basically means that in 40 years, when you, the parent, dies, the child, now a non-functioning, totally helpless adult, is the blessing of some other unwitting and unwilling person. Perhaps you, the idiot opposing the abortion of Down's child, is willing to take that adult into your house. If not, why are you forcing the Down's child's sibling to care for the child?

Posted by POed Lib | July 30, 2007 9:16 PM

Liam Colvin, what sort of contraception do you use after contraception failure? Or after, maybe, rape?

Posted by Crissa | July 30, 2007 9:46 PM

Liam Colvin, what sort of contraception do you use after contraception failure? Or after, maybe, rape?

Posted by Crissa | July 30, 2007 9:46 PM

Well.... If you say that practicing selective abortion is a sort of eugenics, how about practicing selective birth timing? I mean, if couples avoid conceiving children to begin with as time slips on, then that has the same practical effect (fewer Down's syndrome births etc.) as aborting them soon after conception anyway, doesn't it? And, isn't it disingenuous to suggest that the natural tendency for couples to make things easier for themselves, while exercising their natural desire to have freedom about their own reproduction is some feature of "progressive" political thought as such?

tyrannogenius

Posted by Neil Bates | July 30, 2007 10:04 PM

Eugenics means a centrally coordinated effort to manipulate a population's genetic makeup in the direction of some defined set of characteristics. Misapplying the term to individuals' choices to abort fetuses is stupid and/or dishonest.

Posted by live | July 30, 2007 10:09 PM

>>>Vaccination is eugenics: polio is a natural condition given by God. Trying to reduce suffering is wrong because it takes us away from agreeing that Catholicism is correct. Caring about humans qua humans is evil because, er, something. It's far better to simply apply arbitrary propositions as literally as possible without any idea what morality is trying to achieve, other than obedience to principle in and of itself.
>>>Wait, who were the nihilists again?

Plunge,

I think there is a relevant difference between vaccination and genetic manipulation of unborn children. The purpose of vaccination is to prevent a disease so as to maintain the body's proper functioning; its goal is to preserve health and to allow the body to fully fulfil its capabilities. In this sense it's 'natural' (=in accordance with natural tendency) in that it furthers the natural tendency of the body to protect itself from disease (it does, in fact, take advantage of a natural process in animals, the formation of antibodies against disease-causing organisms).

Deliberately altering the genetic makeup or trying to extend the human lifespan to 200 years is not natural in the same sense, as it strives to change the very nature of the human organism at the most fundamental level (the genetic).

>>The problem for me is this: objections on this score are entirely moral, and moral judgments are fundamentally intuitive.
>>Again, fair enough. Then let's have an argument about parameters, an argument based in fact and reason, not morality.

How can an argument based in 'fact and reason' possibly be superior to one based in morality? Facts and reason can never tell us what we should do, in an absolute sense. Their purpose is to tell us how to act in order to pursue the moral goals that we set for ourselves. But only morality (which ultimately stems from, yes, intuition, which some would call the moral sense) can tell us which ends to pursue. Reason can only tell us how best to achieve those ends. I'm sure we could all think of well-reasoned arguments for torture, for example, but what keeps us from stepping over the line is an intuitive feeling that we couldn't bear to look into the eyes of a living person and torture them. Reason should absolutely be the slave of intuition.

Posted by Hector Dauphin-Gloire | July 30, 2007 10:14 PM

Crissa,

*sigh* typical response. I forgot to fully and completely cover my bases by stating the obvious for those who think that *any* opposition to abortion is a *complete* oppostion to abortion. Therefore:

Abortion should be legal.

Beyond that, I would add: its up to you. If its legal, I *don't* have to respect you or your actions. If you want my approval, that's another issue. I don't have to approve of something for it to be legal.

If you're looking for my approval, you have some larger issues to deal with.

Posted by Liam Colvin | July 30, 2007 11:08 PM

When feminist Jody Foster goes to the sperm bank and selects a donor who is a handsome scientist with a 160 IQ, that's eugenics.

Or, look at how the chattering class has fallen hook, line, and sinker for celebrity economist Steven D. Levitt's crypto-eugenic theory, as promoted in his enormous bestseller Freakonomics, that legalizing abortion cut crime by pre-emptively executing those fetuses most likely to grow up to be criminals.

Posted by Steve Sailer | July 31, 2007 2:58 AM

Drum is right. Eugenics never meant abortion for disabilities, it's always meant the weeding out of culturualy or socially minority races for the purification of a master race. Conservatives are more or less reinventing the term to mean what very few people understand it to mean.

also, Yglesias is completely and utterly wrong to consider genetic manipulation the same as "eugenics". They are not the same. Eugenics involved controlled breeding, not direct manipulation of genetic structures. "eugenics" is basically a pseudoscience. Bioengineering is a real one.

Posted by soullite | July 31, 2007 8:14 AM

Eugenics may be a pseudoscience, like the pseudoscience of dog breeding. However, there is no question that, if we wanted to, we could breed people in the direction of increasing or decreasing certain traits, albeit probably with some unwanted side effects.

I think Steve Sailor's example about Jodie Foster is a little too broad. If she is practicing eugenics, then we all are if we consciously try to maximize the attractiveness or intelligence of our mates in order to improve the traits of our prospective children.

If this is eugenics, then I would say its fine if we do it ourselves, as long as we don't try to force it on others.

Posted by Jim W | July 31, 2007 9:15 AM

"I think there is a relevant difference between vaccination and genetic manipulation of unborn children. The purpose of vaccination is to prevent a disease so as to maintain the body's proper functioning; its goal is to preserve health and to allow the body to fully fulfil its capabilities."

Who are YOU to decide what a body's capabilities are or what the "proper" functioning of a body is? God has already decided. That suffering exists, as Mother Theresa once argued, to edify the rest of us: we should be greatful for it and celebrate it, not try to cover it up or make it go away (she certainly put little effort into alleviating physical suffering in Calcutta: making sure they cried out in pain TO HER GOD was what she cared about, not that they cried out in pain).

"In this sense it's 'natural' (=in accordance with natural tendency) in that it furthers the natural tendency of the body to protect itself from disease (it does, in fact, take advantage of a natural process in animals, the formation of antibodies against disease-causing organisms)."

Are you arguing that polio is _artificial_? Yes, the body fights disease, but NATURALLY only does so to a certain extent: when it fails to keep up, that is also natural. When we develop viral-based genetic cures to things like Huntington's disease, will you whine that it is not natural to alter genes in such a way, and that those people should just all die at 40? Is that what you have to say to other genetic diseases like CF?

"Deliberately altering the genetic makeup or trying to extend the human lifespan to 200 years is not natural in the same sense, as it strives to change the very nature of the human organism at the most fundamental level (the genetic)."

To drop the pretense, this is all just plain silly: natural is either exactly what we find in nature, or it is everything we natural creates do: including our genetic manipulation of ourselves.

Posted by plunge | July 31, 2007 11:32 AM

Hector,

I think there is a relevant difference between vaccination and genetic manipulation of unborn children. The purpose of vaccination is to prevent a disease so as to maintain the body's proper functioning; its goal is to preserve health and to allow the body to fully fulfil its capabilities. In this sense it's 'natural' (=in accordance with natural tendency) in that it furthers the natural tendency of the body to protect itself from disease (it does, in fact, take advantage of a natural process in animals, the formation of antibodies against disease-causing organisms).

There is a difference in the method, but not in the moral purpose of the method. In both cases, the purpose is to improve the health and quality of life. Clearly, the purpose of genetic manipulation is to help protect the body from unwanted defiencies that impede the health and viability of the body. The difference is of degree and effectiveness. Vaccinations are only partially effective. What if we could insert genetic code into every child that would enable their bodies to produce a host of antibodies against disease, including ones that are untreatable by injectable vaccines? The only moral difference there is that one method is actually more effective than another. Neither is natural, of course. But genetic manipulation produces a more natural result, in that one's own body produces the antibodies directly, rather than being artificially (and sometimes dangerously so) stimulated to do so by exposure to a toxic disease agent.

And of course, your argument from nature is an argument against everything from indoor plumbing to heart transplants. It is an argument against anything that is "new", or represents the next level of technological improvement over the evolutionary status quo. And that may be the source of your argument: perhaps you believe that man is created by God, not evolution, thus it is morally sinful to tamper with our own genetic code? Arguments like that were made against heart transplants, you know, just a few decades ago? Should we outlaw them as "unnatural"?

The fact is, whether you or I like it, biotechnology is growing at such an exponential rate that the kinds of things you consider unnatural now will be accepted as ordinary within a century or so. Just as automobiles and airplanes are now accepted as ordinary, rather than miraculous inventions that have changed forever what we consider acceptable. This will of course mean the end of the world as we know it, just as the world of the 18th century died forever with the industrial revolution. This is something that is hard for the traditional conservative to accept. It's even hard for most nature-loving enviro-liberals to accept. But people can and will accept it, simply because of the moral benefits it confers. Of course, the same technology used to build automobiles can also be used to build tanks, so there's a moral downside as well. But we have the ability to accept those downsides as long as there is an upside to technological advancement, and with genentic manipulation, there is every reason to expect a huge upside. It won't happen overnight, but the slow crawl of advancement will turn into an avalanche over time. And you and I may even benefit from it ourselves, because genetic manipulation won't be confined only to the unborn. It will someday also be available to anyone. Imagine a world like that, if you dare, and then imagine how it can possibly be stopped short of a holocaust.

Posted by Conrad | July 31, 2007 11:42 AM

Re: Deliberately altering the genetic makeup or trying to extend the human lifespan to 200 years is not natural in the same sense, as it strives to change the very nature of the human organism at the most fundamental level (the genetic).

OK, but doesn't this argument apply to all genetic engineering then? If we genetically engineered, say, corn to be a perennial plant rather than an annual, wouldn't that also violate nature every bit as much as a 200 year old human being? Is the European Left actually correct in hysteria over "Frankenfood"?

Posted by JonF | July 31, 2007 1:30 PM

Steve,

But when you describe eugenics as "the notion that the human species can be improved by selecting the right genes," your definition depends on either someone organizing everyone or the entire group deciding together to pursue this goal.

It doesn't have to be centrally directed (or coerced) in order to be eugenics: individuals making these decisions will tend to have broadly similar aims. Their immediate goals will be to select "good" genes for their children, and to remove "bad" genes.

Posted by Mike S. | July 31, 2007 2:24 PM

OK, but doesn't this argument apply to all genetic engineering then? If we genetically engineered, say, corn to be a perennial plant rather than an annual, wouldn't that also violate nature every bit as much as a 200 year old human being? Is the European Left actually correct in hysteria over "Frankenfood"?

Are men and plants different in any important sense, or is genetically modifying one no different than genetically modifying the other?

Posted by Mike S. | July 31, 2007 2:25 PM

Mike S:

Wanting the best for your children and trying to improve the human race are two DIFFERENT goals, even if some of the criteria of "goodness" and methods are similar.

When all the members of an orchestra are home practicing their instruments so they can play them as well as possible, it's still not a symphony--even though most of the criteria for what constitutes good playing and the methods for achieving it remain the same. It's not a symphony until they come together and work in concert--whether under the baton of a conductor or simply taking the initial tempo from the concertmaster.

Posted by Steve | July 31, 2007 3:01 PM

>>>If we genetically engineered, say, corn to be a perennial plant rather than an annual, wouldn't that also violate nature every bit as much as a 200 year old human being?

JonF,

The difference being of course that fulfilling our deepest nature as human beings is the final end, while corn is simply a means to that end. While I'm not wholeheartedly comfortable with genetic manipulation of corn, I don't particularly oppose it because individual corn plants have no inherent purpose or value in an of themselves, only value inasmuch as they contribute to human welfare. (One could argue, correctly, that the species Zea mays does have value, and that its biodiversity should be protected, but that isn't an argument against genetically manipulating individual strains).

Posted by Hector Dauphin-Gloire | July 31, 2007 3:05 PM

Plunge and Conrad,

I certainly don't believe that we were 'created' by God in the vulgar, creationist sense. I believe in evolution; although I believe that the soul was a direct creation of God, and I'm open to the thought that God may have played a role around the origin of life (something that we still have no good explanation for, and probably never will), and may have continued to be the ultimate intelligence behind the plan, neither of these propositions is essential to my belief in God, and I think evolution explains everything else pretty well.

There seems to be a difference here in how people are using the word 'natural'. 'Natural', in the Platonistic sense, as referring to that which furthers and fulfils the inherent nature of a thing. Not necessarily the same thing as 'biological'. I'm not a Catholic, but presumably one of the Catholic natural law theorists around here can give better explanation.

Injecting a vaccine protects our body against a foreign invader. Trying to prevent the deterioration of our chromosomes with age (the basic premise behind the live-to-200-years idea) is 'protecting' our body against its own inherent tendency to have a finite lifespan and to break down with time. Since the beginning of recorded history, the human maximum lifespan has been set at about 70-80 years, most people didn't achieve that but a few always did. To ensure that more people achieve that, we can try to improve sanitation, nutrition, health care, etc. But to try and extend the human lifespan to 200 years will require quite a drastic change in our basic genetic makeup, which to my mind crosses the line between medical interventions that are parallel to nature (i.e. vaccinations, most drugs, better nutrition etc.) and those that are against nature.

I still haven't heard a good answer to the basic question: If human virtues all ultimately stem from the struggle against our limitations (both those of our environment and those within ourselves), then won't the attempt to do away with our limitations ultimately have the effect of doing away with virtue itself?

Do you think that 'progress' has been a constant story of improvement? Has the proliferation of automobiles and airplanes been a good thing? The fact that we have stripped the world's fossil fuel supplies, poisoned its atmosphere, fundamentally altered its climate, wrecked our environment, devalued human labor, created a division between rich and poor that is unequalled in human history, indulged the worst human tendencies towards pride, greed, and self-interest, doesn't seem like a particularly good thing to me. If you want to use an example of the benefits of modern technology, which are legion, the automobile and airplane are probably not the best places to start.

Posted by Hector Dauphin-Gloire | July 31, 2007 3:32 PM

JA pretty much says it all. Now, there are certainly questions about a rich-poor gap in availing oneself of the benefits of genetic research, but that's not eugenics at all.

Because, if it were, then Douthat and anybody else who opposes national health care is an arch-eugenicist.

Posted by SocraticGadfly | July 31, 2007 4:32 PM

Mike S. writes:

For 40 years, [progressives have] argued that the right to abortion is a fundamental right, and that there is nothing that can impinge upon a woman's right to choose an abortion. Now some of them are arguing that only some reasons are acceptable ones for having an abortion. But they act bewildered when those who oppose the unlimited license to abortion find this position contradictory.

With all due respect, do you not think it's possible to say to someone, "Ultimately, this decision is up to you, but I may not agree with the decision you make?" I can believe that a woman has the final decision in what happens with (and inside) her body, and can also believe that the decision she makes may in some cases be morally repugnant.

The dilemma of the abortion debate, I think, is that when you strip out the histrionics and distortions, there are two fundamentally defensible moral positions in opposition: you have the right to control your own body and you do not have the right to murder. (I know many pro-choice people would object to my use of "murder," but I'm stating it as bluntly as possible.) The issue is ultimately whether, when those two precepts come into conflict, the first trumps the second or vice-versa. I'm pro-choice, in the final analysis, because I don't believe it's the role of the legal system to impose that decision on anyone.

And on point to the original discussion, this is why I find this sudden meme of "abortion = eugenics" to be specious (putting it very charitably). The entire foundation of the pro-choice position is that the decision about whether to carry a pregnancy to term is ultimately nobody's business but the mother's; all the negative connotations of "eugenics" stem from the imposition of values, through the state, on the mother. They're obviously diametrically opposed values to a pro-life position, but that doesn't make them pro-choice: forced abortion is every bit as anti-choice, and just as morally repugnant.

Your more abstract point could be restated, I think, as "policy decisions may have unintended consequences," which is true, but certainly has nothing to do with being liberal or conservative. There are certainly valid concerns about abortions being performed because babies are projected to be "deficient" in some way, but it's no more fair to take that point and restate it as "progressives favor a new eugenics" than it is to take valid concerns about Republican economic policies having negative impacts and saying "Republicans favor letting the poor die," is it? I don't see a way to condemn one of those as an outrageous distortion while giving the other a pass.

Posted by Watts | July 31, 2007 6:23 PM

Hector,

You seem like a thoughtful guy. Let me challenge some of your assumptions:

There seems to be a difference here in how people are using the word 'natural'. 'Natural', in the Platonistic sense, as referring to that which furthers and fulfils the inherent nature of a thing. Not necessarily the same thing as 'biological'.

But what is the inherent nature of a man? You seem to be arguing that the inherent nature of man is not found in his biology, in his genetic code. I agree with you there. If so, then altering that code does not alter his inherent nature. Correct? I am religious, and I believe in the spiritual reality of our being. I do not believe that our spiritual reality is altered by our genetics, nor by any manipulation of our genetics. Our genetics has changed dramatically over time in any case. That is evolution, which until now has proceeded unconsciously. Changing it consciously, by scientific method and human purpose, does not seem to alter our inherent humanity, but to fulfill it. The human genetic code is an “unfinished business”. It is not sacred in its present state. It is made to be altered by the most random of mutations, and has been for eons. Why is a non-random mutations somehow an unnatural alteration? If we have evolved the capacity to alter our own genetic code, how can that be against our nature, when it is the very fulfillment of our nature?

Injecting a vaccine protects our body against a foreign invader. Trying to prevent the deterioration of our chromosomes with age (the basic premise behind the live-to-200-years idea) is 'protecting' our body against its own inherent tendency to have a finite lifespan and to break down with time. Since the beginning of recorded history, the human maximum lifespan has been set at about 70-80 years, most people didn't achieve that but a few always did. To ensure that more people achieve that, we can try to improve sanitation, nutrition, health care, etc. But to try and extend the human lifespan to 200 years will require quite a drastic change in our basic genetic makeup, which to my mind crosses the line between medical interventions that are parallel to nature (i.e. vaccinations, most drugs, better nutrition etc.) and those that are against nature.

Your distinction between methods that “go against nature”, and methods that run “parallel to nature” is arbitrary. There is no such line in nature itself. It is an invention of your own mind. A vaccine that stimulates your body to produce antibodies is not different in any meaningful way from a gene in your DNA that does the same thing. The fact is, there are already tons of genes in your body which are responsible for antibody production. Adding another one does not in any way alter the way in which our immune systems already work. It merely adds a specific set of antibodies to the list of what it already produces. In fact, it may be as simple as “turning on” a gene that is already present, but not fully activated, in our own DNA.

As for life-extension genetic manipulation, this too may turn out to be relatively simple. There are already animals, such as tortoises and some birds, which do not age. It is perfectly natural for them, so why not for us? If we can find the genes that do that for them, and create the equivalent genes for ourselves, what exactly is so “unnatural” about that? We don’t have wings, but that hasn’t stopped us from building airplanes. But even if it were complex, as modern airplanes are, why would that be “against nature”? You aren’t really making an argument, just asserting a presumption.

I still haven't heard a good answer to the basic question: If human virtues all ultimately stem from the struggle against our limitations (both those of our environment and those within ourselves), then won't the attempt to do away with our limitations ultimately have the effect of doing away with virtue itself?

This is an argument which defeats itself. If our virtues come from struggling with limitations, then how is it that succeeding in that struggle destroys virtue? Are you saying that virtue is the result of failing in our struggle, but evil comes from actually overcoming those limitations? I don’t know how else to interpret your argument. The practical argument against your stance here is that there may simply be no end to the limitations we have to deal with. If we conquer one, such as aging, more will pop up to replace them. Hence we will always have something to struggle against, if that makes you feel more virtuous about our future.

Do you think that 'progress' has been a constant story of improvement? Has the proliferation of automobiles and airplanes been a good thing? The fact that we have stripped the world's fossil fuel supplies, poisoned its atmosphere, fundamentally altered its climate, wrecked our environment, devalued human labor, created a division between rich and poor that is unequalled in human history, indulged the worst human tendencies towards pride, greed, and self-interest, doesn't seem like a particularly good thing to me. If you want to use an example of the benefits of modern technology, which are legion, the automobile and airplane are probably not the best places to start.

You argued before that the inherent age range for humans is 70-80 years. For whom? Until modern technology came along, only the very rare, the very privileged, or the very lucky ever saw such vast lifespans. Half of all humans died before the age of five for most of human history, probably more. The average lifespan in hunter-gather times was maybe 30 years. Even in the middle ages it was actually less than that, around 25 years of age. It’s only in very recent times that technology has made possible these “natural” lifespans of ours. Now almost everyone can expect to live past 70, and the average lifespan is over 80 for many groups. If that figure increases to over 100, will that really be unnatural? If we live as old as tortoises and parrots, will that be unnatural? No more so than living to 80 is already.

And no, I don’t have as gloomy a view as you do of such inventions as automobiles and airplanes. I think they are wonderful. They certainly have their limitations, but isn’t that a good thing, in that it requires us to virtuously overcome those limitations?

Posted by Conrad | July 31, 2007 8:47 PM

Re: Are men and plants different in any important sense, or is genetically modifying one no different than genetically modifying the other?

Physically, men and plants differ only in the details. Now if you want me to say that humans have souls, etc. I will say it: I believe that too. But souls are supernatural; they are not part of nature, and the arhgument being made here is not about supernatural things, but about violating "nature". If it violates nature to genetically modify humans then it violates nature every bit as much to genetically modify corn-- or bacteria for that matter. The only other distinction I can make here (but this also has nothing to do with "nature") is that it's immoral to inflict anything on a human being against his will (with exceptions for self-defense, instances where consent must be assumed etc.) That's not true with plants and animals of course. But let's say someone has a genetic illness and deliberately seeks to have that illness cured with some sort of (currently just hypothetical) gene therapy. Is this immoral? Yes or no?

Re: The difference being of course that fulfilling our deepest nature as human beings is the final end, while corn is simply a means to that end.

OK, but see the above. Aagin, assume we have an adult who has given knowledgeable consent to undergo some sort of modification. Where's the wrong? Also, I am a bit queasy about positing us humans as "the final end", even for ourselves. That strikes me a hubris beyond belief, and it leaves no place for God or the unimaginebale futures He yet may have planned for Creation. Surely humility about our place in the world is morally more apt?

Re: But to try and extend the human lifespan to 200 years will require quite a drastic change in our basic genetic makeup, which to my mind crosses the line between medical interventions that are parallel to nature (i.e. vaccinations, most drugs, better nutrition etc.) and those that are against nature.

Here's another problem I have with this line of reasoning: How can something even exist that is against nature (other than supernatural miracles whose author is God)? Anything that truly violates natural law (like a perpetual motion machine, for example) is simply not going to be possible anyway.

Re: human virtues all ultimately stem from the struggle against our limitations (both those of our environment and those within ourselves), then won't the attempt to do away with our limitations ultimately have the effect of doing away with virtue itself?

You've stumbled into a paradox. After all, if we don't struggle against those limitations, lest we screw up, where is virtue then? Is our only virtue to be saying "At least I did nothing wrong"?

Posted by JonF | July 31, 2007 9:01 PM

JonF and Conrad,

You both have good points and I need to think about some of them and possibly reassess some of my thoughts. However, here are my responses to a couple of points where I think you can be refuted.

Obviously, when I said that fulfiling our deepest human natures is the 'final end' for us, I don't mean to take pride of place away from God. Rather, I would say that ultimately our deepest natures, being spiritual as well as animal creatures, can only be fulfilled through knowing God.

Regarding overcoming our limitations: There is a paradox here, and I confess that I don't know how to resolve it. George Orwell noted the same paradox in 'The Road to Wigan Pier', and many before him as well. To be a good human being necessitates struggling against evil, but a world without evil would also be a world where good had no meaning. I do think that we should strive to do our best to bring the benefits of modern medicine and health i.e. antibiotics, antivirals, sanitation, vaccinations, and other interventions to every human being, in particular to the poor and to those in impoverished countries. I think that we should strive to create a more just economic and social system as well. But I think that struggling against things like diseases and earthquakes, and against 'moral evil', is fundamentally different than changing our actual biological identity. The endurance of suffering and the elimination of suffering both have a place in a good human life, what I don't want to see is either one to be exalted to the detriment of the other. Most of human history erred too far in the first direction, my worry is that now we are erring too far in the other.

When I said 70-80 years, I wasn't referring to how long people actually lived, but rather to how long people could possibly live (actually perhaps closer to 100-110 years) given the inherent constraints of our genetic makeup. The constraint on human lifespans is something inherent in and common to our species, it's different than things like accidents or diseases which strike at random.

Lastly, stop and consider that all progressive or utopian visions, though they might intellectually laugh at the idea of 'natural law', ultimately draw whatever power and strength they have from some conception of what is truly 'natural'. All visionary dreams, whether on the moderate or the far left, all depend on the premise that there are some essential features and yearnings to our nature that should be fulfilled, and that they can only be fulfilled through the transformation of society (common ownership of the means of production, universal suffrage, women's rights, or whatever other intervention it might be). If there is no ultimate human nature, and human nature can be whatever we choose it to be, then on what basis can we argue for the project of transforming society. We could just as well genetically alter the human race to be whatever we choose it to be. I can elaborate more on this tomorrow if you'd like.

Posted by Hector Dauphin-Gloire | July 31, 2007 9:57 PM

Re: To be a good human being necessitates struggling against evil, but a world without evil would also be a world where good had no meaning.

Well, here at least I think we need not worry: even if we live 500 years and gain unimagineable abilities, evil will still be with us. That is not amenable to technological fixes.

Posted by JonF | July 31, 2007 10:19 PM

Mike S wrote,

For 40 years, they've argued that the right to abortion is a fundamental right, and that there is nothing that can impinge upon a woman's right to choose an abortion.

Yes, we've argued that the right to abortion is a fundamental right. But "fundamental" does not equal "absolute," as you imply when you write "nothing that can impinge."

Posted by liberal | August 1, 2007 1:52 AM

Hector,

[blockquote]Obviously, when I said that fulfiling our deepest human natures is the 'final end' for us, I don't mean to take pride of place away from God. Rather, I would say that ultimately our deepest natures, being spiritual as well as animal creatures, can only be fulfilled through knowing God. [/blockquote]

I think this is a good point, but I don’t see how it changes the practical equation. I don’t think that biological immortality is “heaven” or a panacea. Life is duality, and no final utopia is possible. All things appear in opposites, and move in cycles. Good never wins completely, nor does evil. Striving for physical immortality as a metaphysical solution to life’s existential problem is in vain. However, it is perfectly fine and natural otherwise, in the purely practical sense. Just as vaccinations won’t change the spiritual realities of life for better or worse, neither will genetic manipulations. But they can change the practical realities in ways that can be highly benign and conducive to spiritual integrity. Or they can be destructive of the same. It depends on how they are applied.

Technology is not the answer to our spiritual problems, but it is an answer to many practical problems. Genetics is a critical aspect of that practical level of life. Now, you are right that some people may completely alter themselves so much as to no longer be human. They will evolve into some other species. This will happen eventually anyway, however, whether through random mutation or conscious mutation. But if the choice is a conscious one on our part, we can evolve in a fashion that is guided, at the very least, by our own best choices. For some people, maybe many, that choice will be motivated by something more than base desire and a search for power.

[blockquote]To be a good human being necessitates struggling against evil, but a world without evil would also be a world where good had no meaning. [/blockquote]

Neither good nor evil have any inherent meaning. This is where you go wrong, I think. They are relative, dualistic terms that we assign meanings to based on our own interests and aspirations, spiritual and otherwise, and then we project those meanings onto the world. To know God is to know that which is beyond good and evil, beyond dualisms, to know what is “prior” to the fall of man into dualistic life. To defeat evil is not possible in dualistic terms, because the presence of good requires evil to persist, and will create it even if it appears to be absent. But evil can be transcended, though that requires the transcendence of good as well.

Even so, genetic manipulations and advanced technology will never solve all problems and vanquish evil. If nothing else remains, there is the problem of boredom and eternity. These require a solution that is beyond time and space, beyond DNA and biology.

[blockquote]I think that struggling against things like diseases and earthquakes, and against 'moral evil', is fundamentally different than changing our actual biological identity. The endurance of suffering and the elimination of suffering both have a place in a good human life, what I don't want to see is either one to be exalted to the detriment of the other. Most of human history erred too far in the first direction, my worry is that now we are erring too far in the other. [/blockquote]

I don’t think our choices are limited to exaltation of one side of life to the detriment of the others. I do think we can create a very benign world, however, that does not impinge upon our spiritual nature so crassly as the present world does. Technology has a prominent place in creating such a world. It wouldn’t be utopia, but it would be nice.

[blockquote]The constraint on human lifespans is something inherent in and common to our species, it's different than things like accidents or diseases which strike at random. [/blockquote]

Human lifespans are something we generally have in common, but they are not inherent. There is no reason, apart from evolutionary pressures, that we should live such short, or long, lives. In fact, even according to the Bible, we should be living hundreds of years, like Methuselah. We may choose not to live so long, but it’s not as if there is an inherent limit on our lifespans, If there were, it would be impossible to change in any case. That’s the meaning of the word “inherent”.

[blockquote]All visionary dreams, whether on the moderate or the far left, all depend on the premise that there are some essential features and yearnings to our nature that should be fulfilled, and that they can only be fulfilled through the transformation of society (common ownership of the means of production, universal suffrage, women's rights, or whatever other intervention it might be). [/blockquote]

You are confusing ideological idealism with practical technology. Many, many ideas are simply not practical, however much we might wish them to be. Likewise, many very practical possibilities are unimaginable, or are the functional equivalent of “magic”, to a less technologically developed society. Now, it certainly may turn out that greatly extended lifespans are simply not possible, but I think we both have good reason to suspect otherwise. Now, the idea that such technological immortality will be a “utopia” is of course absurd. That doesn’t mean it isn’t both practical and beneficial. It of course represents a huge transformation in humanity, and possibly even the evolution beyond humanity, but who is to say this is a “bad” or “evil” thing, any more than we can say the invention of vaccines is bad or evil because it takes away the “fear of God” that is instilled in people by the threat of random sickness and death?

Posted by Conrad | August 1, 2007 4:16 AM

Hector,

Obviously, when I said that fulfiling our deepest human natures is the 'final end' for us, I don't mean to take pride of place away from God. Rather, I would say that ultimately our deepest natures, being spiritual as well as animal creatures, can only be fulfilled through knowing God.

I think this is a good point, but I don’t see how it changes the practical equation. I don’t think that biological immortality is “heaven” or a panacea. Life is duality, and no final utopia is possible. All things appear in opposites, and move in cycles. Good never wins completely, nor does evil. Striving for physical immortality as a metaphysical solution to life’s existential problem is in vain. However, it is perfectly fine and natural otherwise, in the purely practical sense. Just as vaccinations won’t change the spiritual realities of life for better or worse, neither will genetic manipulations. But they can change the practical realities in ways that can be highly benign and conducive to spiritual integrity. Or they can be destructive of the same. It depends on how they are applied.

Technology is not the answer to our spiritual problems, but it is an answer to many practical problems. Genetics is a critical aspect of that practical level of life. Now, you are right that some people may completely alter themselves so much as to no longer be human. They will evolve into some other species. This will happen eventually anyway, however, whether through random mutation or conscious mutation. But if the choice is a conscious one on our part, we can evolve in a fashion that is guided, at the very least, by our own best choices. For some people, maybe many, that choice will be motivated by something more than base desire and a search for power.

To be a good human being necessitates struggling against evil, but a world without evil would also be a world where good had no meaning.

Neither good nor evil have any inherent meaning. This is where you go wrong, I think. They are relative, dualistic terms that we assign meanings to based on our own interests and aspirations, spiritual and otherwise, and then we project those meanings onto the world. To know God is to know that which is beyond good and evil, beyond dualisms, to know what is “prior” to the fall of man into dualistic life. To defeat evil is not possible in dualistic terms, because the presence of good requires evil to persist, and will create it even if it appears to be absent. But evil can be transcended, though that requires the transcendence of good as well.

Even so, genetic manipulations and advanced technology will never solve all problems and vanquish evil. If nothing else remains, there is the problem of boredom and eternity. These require a solution that is beyond time and space, beyond DNA and biology.

I think that struggling against things like diseases and earthquakes, and against 'moral evil', is fundamentally different than changing our actual biological identity. The endurance of suffering and the elimination of suffering both have a place in a good human life, what I don't want to see is either one to be exalted to the detriment of the other. Most of human history erred too far in the first direction, my worry is that now we are erring too far in the other.

I don’t think our choices are limited to exaltation of one side of life to the detriment of the others. I do think we can create a very benign world, however, that does not impinge upon our spiritual nature so crassly as the present world does. Technology has a prominent place in creating such a world. It wouldn’t be utopia, but it would be nice.

The constraint on human lifespans is something inherent in and common to our species, it's different than things like accidents or diseases which strike at random.

Human lifespans are something we generally have in common, but they are not inherent. There is no reason, apart from evolutionary pressures, that we should live such short, or long, lives. In fact, even according to the Bible, we should be living hundreds of years, like Methuselah. We may choose not to live so long, but it’s not as if there is an inherent limit on our lifespans, If there were, it would be impossible to change in any case. That’s the meaning of the word “inherent”.

All visionary dreams, whether on the moderate or the far left, all depend on the premise that there are some essential features and yearnings to our nature that should be fulfilled, and that they can only be fulfilled through the transformation of society (common ownership of the means of production, universal suffrage, women's rights, or whatever other intervention it might be).

You are confusing ideological idealism with practical technology. Many, many ideas are simply not practical, however much we might wish them to be. Likewise, many very practical possibilities are unimaginable, or are the functional equivalent of “magic”, to a less technologically developed society. Now, it certainly may turn out that greatly extended lifespans are simply not possible, but I think we both have good reason to suspect otherwise. Now, the idea that such technological immortality will be a “utopia” is of course absurd. That doesn’t mean it isn’t both practical and beneficial. It of course represents a huge transformation in humanity, and possibly even the evolution beyond humanity, but who is to say this is a “bad” or “evil” thing, any more than we can say the invention of vaccines is bad or evil because it takes away the “fear of God” that is instilled in people by the threat of random sickness and death?

Posted by Conrad | August 1, 2007 4:25 AM

Ross DuRag, we needz to have a sit-down. I don't know shit 'bout you, but let me guess; you luv dem free markets and might even fancy yose'f a libertarian. You a brotha of principles and don't see why yo' skrict 'herrance to 'em keep leavin' ya' in da bed by yose'f. Lemme step back a minute...fo' i getz to personal. K-Drum is well respected and I demand you show him that respect what he had done earned. He's working at a high-level analysis wise (not quite MattyD), but to even be a libertarian shows you're working with a dearth of critical thinking skills. People be like "Hey, Duq, Laquita thanks she a libertarian" Might make 'em feel smart, but it's more like wearin' on'a dem arm bands what the nazis had put on the retards. Dat's just my two-cent. Peace!

Posted by I had been having K-Drums back way back in the day!! RECOGNIZE! | August 2, 2007 1:13 AM

http://geocities.com/joploz/01/ ptefkko

Posted by pdvwq | April 1, 2008 8:24 PM

http://geocities.com/joploz/01/ ptefkko

Posted by pdvwq | April 1, 2008 8:25 PM

http://geocities.com/joploz/01/ ptefkko

Posted by pdvwq | April 1, 2008 8:25 PM

http://geocities.com/joploz/03/ mcnodwx

Posted by bnanc | April 3, 2008 1:44 PM