Basic to the theory of evolution is the success of superior examples of a race, and the failure of the poorer specimens. This is not only necessary for the species to improve, but is even necessary for the species to maintain the status quo. In nature, species that are no longer forced to maintain a defense against predators or hazards eventually lose that defense. This is, in fact, a form of evolution of its own -- if the defense is no longer needed, it is dropped so that the energy can be expended on more important things. The same thing is true for natural selection of any genetic trait, including intelligence, appearance, temperament, whatever. If the environment does not maintain pressure to encourage these traits, they will wither and die.
Now, just about everyone who's suffered through science class is familiar with the theory of evolution, the idea that the better organisms will win out over the inferior, that nature is constantly improving the species. This is almost intuitive to many people. What is not as intuitive is the realization that, for this process to work, the inferior organisms must fail to reproduce. In nature, this generally means that they must die before they get a chance to reproduce, although there are also examples in nature of mating rituals that select for superior traits. In any case, it should be obvious to all that there is no genetic selection occurring in human society today; each and every individual, including criminals, morons, weaklings, politicians, everyone has the opportunity to reproduce -- and most of them take that opportunity.
Up until a century ago or so, there was plenty of natural selection going on to keep the human race on its toes. Just check any old cemetery, and you'll find plenty of infant deaths, deaths from disease, deaths from all sorts of causes. Natural selection was hard at work, making the human race a stronger species.
There have also been many eugenics programs at work since civilization began. A few centuries back, England took to deporting all criminals -- often here to America. Today, the UK is remarkably crime-free, while the US leads the world in almost all crime statistics.
Now, however, there is almost no natural selection going on at all. As a result, the human race has not only ceased to improve genetically, it is now moving backwards at an alarming rate. IMHO, it's time to turn the tide and get moving in the right direction again.
There are two ways to think about eugenics: either you're thinking of eliminating the worst 1% of the gene pool, or you're thinking of eliminating the worst 99%. Most of the bad press that eugenics gets comes from people who visualize eliminating the worst 99% -- in other words, people planning to select only a chosen few to reproduce. However, any scientist will tell you that this would be a bad idea; you risk losing the genetic diversity that may be necessary to bring the human race through crises in the future. A proper eugenics program attempts to eliminate only the worst 1% from the gene pool -- just enough to cause a gradual overall improvement.
We human beings have the ability and technology to put a couple twists on natural selection. First, the specimens carrying undesirable genes don't have to die, or even be deported, to remove them from the gene pool; we can have people surgically sterilized, or even provided Norplant or some such, and they can live the rest of their lives in peace. Second, we can choose what genetic traits we find undesirable, and the criteria may be more involved than simply survival.
One objection that is always raised is: just who decides who can and who cannot reproduce? Any selection process would likely be prone to corruption and scandal. Well, I would suggest that there not be a selection process. Rather, I think it would be a better idea to define what actions would indicate that a person's genes are unsuitable for continuation, and let the individuals themselves decide by their actions. For example: could we agree that any person convicted of two separate violent crimes is probably a good candidate for sterilization? If so, we just establish that criteria, and the selection takes care of itself.
Another objection: Perhaps this violent criminal is not this way due to bad genes, but rather to bad upbringing. I submit that this makes no difference whatsoever. It can be easily demonstrated that violent offspring far more often come from violent parents than from non-violent parents. Whether the vector for transmission of this trait is via bad genes or via bad parenting is immaterial; the lineage needs to be terminated.
Keep in mind that there is nothing "cruel" about this action. Many of us have voluntarily submitted ourselves for (hell, paid for) sterilization. And it's not like we're going to be threatening the global population. Let's face it, it's time to cull the herd a little.
And yes, there may be other criteria besides violent crime, although that's one of my personal favorites. Another possibility: require those applying for welfare to agree to sterilization, possibly via Norplant so that it can be reversed if they get off welfare. Who can muster an objection to this idea?
Return to Kirby Palm's opinions page.
Return to Kirby Palm's home page.
Of course, if you have questions or comments, you are welcome to send e-mail to me at palmk@nettally.com.