In this blog post, we will look at how modern eugenics differs from the past, focusing on human cloning and genetic selection, and whether it is ethically acceptable.
Since modern biology opened the door to the possibility of human cloning, many people have been looking at the benefits of human cloning, hoping that it will solve the challenges of modern medicine, such as genetic diseases and disorders. However, at the same time, concerns have been raised about the many harms that the technology could cause, including ethical issues, and human cloning has sparked a debate among experts from all walks of life. While proponents and opponents of the eugenics debate sharply disagree on various issues from ethical, technological, religious, and commercial perspectives, it is difficult to determine which side is entirely right because these differences in opinion stem from each individual’s values. However, in order to accurately convey the pros and cons of this debate, it is necessary to properly understand the nature of the terms used, and we will therefore focus on the issue of “eugenic selection.”
Concerns about eugenic selection through manipulation of genes are one of the key issues in the debate over human cloning. Proponents argue that human cloning research is not intended to create “Superman” or “Wonder Woman” through genetic selection, but to reduce the suffering of children with disabilities or genetic diseases. On the other hand, opponents like Leon Kass warn that widespread human cloning based on genetic engineering will lead to problems as people will overuse eugenic selection to remove recessive factors from the reproductive process and leave only dominant factors. In addition, the US National Bioethics Advisory Committee points out that the creation of children using cloning technology gives parents the right to choose the traits of their children, allowing eugenic practices, which can undermine important social values.
In fact, the theory of eugenics was used as a justification for the Nazi genocide of the Jews and the oppression of people of color, and had a major negative impact on racism and supremacy. This has led to eugenics being seen as a blind ideology, which has caused great rejection among the public. Therefore, the arguments of those who oppose opening the door to eugenics through human cloning seem valid, and it may be a natural consequence that people feel repulsed by human cloning. However, it is necessary to understand that the “eugenics” referred to here is different from the concept of the past and the eugenic choices of the present. In order to make the right judgment on human cloning, we must overcome the previous eugenic aversion and recognize that modern eugenics is essentially different from the past.
First, the means, purpose, and methods of eugenics differ between the past and the present. The eugenics of the past aimed to improve the genetic traits of the entire population, and in the process, the rights of individuals were ignored, and the government forcibly restricted or promoted parental reproduction. In addition, it relied on overly simplistic scientific premises that were biased toward racial and class prejudices. On the other hand, modern eugenics is based on scientific findings based on sufficient research for the purpose of treating genetic diseases or enhancing certain traits. This process is carried out by voluntary decisions of individual families, and is likely to have a positive social impact from a utilitarian perspective.
Second, there is a difference in the validity of the research on the subject of superiority. The eugenics of the past made the mistake of considering the skin color of people of color as a recessive factor, using skin color as a criterion for superiority, while the white cultural sphere oppressed people of color, including black people. This was due to ignorance of the scientific fact that skin color is merely the result of environmental adaptation of the relevant race. The former eugenics was not feasible due to a lack of genetic research. On the other hand, modern eugenics has gained a clear understanding of the role of genes and genetic diseases through research, making it possible to scientifically recognize the feasibility of genetic correction. Under the premise of ensuring voluntary participation, it is possible to precisely adjust the genes that cause genetic diseases.
Third, while eugenics in the past was implemented as a government policy with specific intentions, modern eugenics can be seen as a way that is already being used naturally in human life. While eugenics in the past was seen as a forced and taboo area, in modern society, eugenics can be seen as an implicit phenomenon. For example, people tend to choose healthy and good-looking spouses to improve the genetic traits of their offspring, which is not much different from the basic concept of eugenics, which is to improve the traits of offspring. Selecting a specific stallion to produce a superior racehorse or selectively breeding puppies with desired traits can also be considered eugenic selection. Modern eugenics is already a phenomenon that has become part of our daily lives.
Fourth, there are differences in the position on environmental impact and the reliability of eugenics based on this. Eugenics in the past was biased towards genetic determinism, which claimed that genes determine everything, and contained a distorted claim that black people are genetically inferior to white people. Today, there are some scholars who argue for genetic determinism, such as Richard Dawkins, but there are also many studies that show that the environment and individual effort also affect human potential. Modern eugenics aims to reduce the risk of blind eugenic pursuits by taking these factors into account.
In this way, modern eugenics is very different from eugenics of the past in many ways. It is based on voluntary decisions to treat an individual’s genetic disease or enhance a trait, is based on research results on the subject of genetic superiority or inferiority, is naturally practiced in modern life, unlike past compulsory policies, and takes environmental factors into account. Therefore, the eugenic concerns of opponents of human cloning based on the concept of eugenics in the past need to be reconsidered from the perspective of modern eugenics. However, modern eugenics does not absolutely guarantee the validity of eugenic selection. Opponents may still argue that even modern eugenics has problems and that eugenic selection is not right. As technology is advancing, it is important to understand the nature of the debate in order to avoid exhausting arguments and to have constructive discussions. Therefore, it is very important to recognize that past and modern eugenics are different.
