The main argument against eugenics has traditionally been that whoever holds the sterilization gun will abuse it. It's a very good argument. An even better argument against eugenics is that the very fact of unnatural selection will have the long-term effect of narrowing the human gene pool and breeding out qualities that are often antisocial or undesirable yet are vital to human survival (e.g., aggression, risk-taking and mad creativity).
The main argument in favor of eugenics has traditionally been that allowing unchecked reproduction in a civilized society in which the unfit are not permitted to die nor the irresponsible to starve will inevitably leave the future to the most irresponsible and unfit, who reproduce nonstop and pass the consequences onto society. An even better argument in favor of eugenics is that the availability of birth control greatly exacerbates this problem by making reproductive outcomes even more favorable to the irresponsible.
But there is a way to satisfy both the pro- and anti- eugenics arguments.
Sterilize literally everyone.
By this modus operandi, everyone would be surgically sterilized by default, probably by partial vasectomy or placing an obstruction in the testes or fallopian tubes. The sterilization would take place at the same time as immunization and be designed to be easily reversible.
As it is now, sex resulting in childbirth is the default; abortion and contraception are "choices". In a civilized society, it should properly be the inverse, childbirth the choice, and sterility the default.
"Sterilizing Literally Everyone" would take the future from the most irresponsible and place it firmly in the hands of the most responsible - without treading on anyone's right to have children if they so please.
Some would say that making such procedures mandatory is a violation of human rights, or human decency. I would reply that fluoridation and immunization are already mandatory under the law, and if they weren't, society would be much worse off than it is. Most hospitals do not even ask parents before circumcising newborns, even though after 5000 years the jury is still out on whether the procedure's pluses outweigh its minuses. (Women generally opinion in favor of their first love). Reversible sterilization, I would argue, is less invasive and less degrading than the introduction of foreign substances to our bodily fluids without our consent.
I would also like to point out here that the premise of "Sterilizing Literally Everyone" runs counter to the arguments made by abortion advocates. Abortion advocates - those who are not merely of the opinion that abortion should be legal, but actively work to promulgate the procedure - argue that the main cause of birth out of wedlock and early/single/unwanted childbirth is lack of access to abortion or contraception. They are wrong, and they don't want to understand how wrong they are.
In reality - as anyone who spends time observing socially marginal people knows - the overwhelming majority of irresponsible people having kids have easy access to birth control and don't have an ethical problem with abortion. The reason for most unwanted birth is that these people are irresponsible and not in control of their lives because they are degraded people with low self-mastery. This is also why they do not invest in their own futures, and why they vote against their own interests.
This is also why the importance in improving healthcare, fighting crime, building mass transit, and planting forests is not merely to increase employment or improve living conditions, but to improve psych levels in society and give the people a sense of self-mastery - prevent the "grinding down" process of psych degeneration that makes people wear floppy clothes, do drugs and watch too much TV.
"Sterilizing Literally Everyone" is the best approach to eugenics because it will create unnatural selection in favor of the single most unambiguously positive quality: self-mastery, people who are given to the making of choices.
Opinions welcomed.
No comments:
Post a Comment