This blog post examines how modern eugenics differs from its historical counterpart and whether it is ethically acceptable, focusing on human cloning and genetic selection.
Since modern biology opened the door to the possibility of human cloning, many have focused on its potential benefits, expecting it to solve modern medicine’s challenges like genetic diseases and disabilities. However, concerns about the harms it could cause, including ethical issues, have simultaneously been raised, sparking heated debates among experts across various fields. Proponents and opponents clash sharply over diverse points of contention from ethical, technical, religious, and commercial perspectives. However, these differences stem from individual value systems, making it difficult to easily judge one side’s argument as entirely correct. Yet, to accurately convey the arguments for and against in this debate, it is necessary to properly understand the essence of the terms used. Accordingly, we will focus on examining the point of contention known as ‘eugenic selection’.
Concerns about eugenic selection through genetic manipulation are a key issue in the debate on human cloning. Proponents argue that human cloning research aims not to create ‘supermen’ or ‘wonderwomen’ through genetic selection, but to reduce the suffering children might endure from disabilities or genetic diseases. Conversely, opponents like Leon Kass warn that if human cloning based on genetic manipulation becomes widespread, people will excessively engage in eugenic selection during reproduction, seeking to eliminate recessive genes and retain only dominant ones, leading to problems. Furthermore, the US National Bioethics Advisory Committee points out that using cloning technology to create children grants parents the right to select their offspring’s traits, effectively permitting eugenic practices, which could undermine important social values.
Indeed, eugenics theory was used to justify the Nazi genocide of Jews and the oppression of people of color, exerting a profoundly harmful influence on racism and supremacist ideologies. Consequently, eugenics came to be viewed as a blind ideology, provoking strong public rejection. Therefore, the arguments of those opposing the opening of the path to eugenics through human cloning appear valid, and people’s aversion to human cloning may be a natural result. However, it is necessary to understand that the ‘eugenics’ mentioned here differs from the concept of the past and modern eugenic selection. To make a sound judgment on human cloning, we must move beyond past eugenic aversion and recognize that modern eugenics is fundamentally different from its historical counterpart.
First, past and modern eugenics differ in their means, ends, and methods. Past eugenics aimed to improve the genetic traits of the entire population, disregarding individual rights in the process, with governments forcibly restricting or promoting parental reproduction. It also relied on overly simplistic scientific premises, heavily biased by racial and class prejudices. In contrast, modern eugenics is based on scientific outcomes grounded in sufficient research, aiming to treat individual genetic diseases or enhance specific traits. This process occurs through the voluntary decisions of individual families and is highly likely to act in a socially positive direction from a utilitarian perspective.
Second, there is a difference in the validity of research regarding the subjects of superiority and inferiority. Past eugenics committed the error of oppressing people of color, including Black people, within white-dominated cultures, using skin color as a criterion for superiority and inferiority and treating the skin of people of color as a recessive factor. This stemmed from ignorance of the scientific fact that skin color is merely the result of environmental adaptation for that race. Past eugenics lacked validity due to insufficient genetic research. In contrast, modern eugenics has gained a clear understanding of the role of genes and genetic diseases through research, enabling scientific recognition of the validity of genetic correction. Provided voluntary participation is guaranteed, genes causing genetic diseases can be precisely adjusted.
Third, while past eugenics was implemented as government policy with specific intentions, modern eugenics can be seen as already being naturally utilized in human life. Whereas past eugenics was viewed as coercive and taboo, in modern society, eugenics can be seen as an implicitly existing phenomenon. For example, people tend to choose attractive and healthy partners to improve their offspring’s genetic traits, which is not fundamentally different from the basic concept of eugenics aiming to enhance offspring traits. Selecting specific stallions to obtain superior racehorses or selectively breeding dogs for desired traits can also be considered eugenic selection. Modern eugenics is thus already a phenomenon embedded in everyday life.
Fourth, there are differences in perspectives regarding environmental influences and the resulting reliability of eugenics. Past eugenics leaned heavily toward genetic determinism, which asserts that genes determine everything, and contained distorted claims such as that blacks are genetically inferior to whites. Today, while scholars like Richard Dawkins still advocate genetic determinism, numerous studies also show that environment and individual effort significantly influence human potential. Modern eugenics considers these factors, aiming to reduce the dangers of blind eugenic pursuits.
Thus, modern eugenics differs significantly from its historical counterpart in several ways. It is distinctly different in that it is based on voluntary decisions for treating individual genetic diseases or enhancing traits, grounded in research on genetic superiority, implemented naturally within modern life unlike past coercive policies, and considers environmental factors. Therefore, the eugenic concerns about human cloning raised by opponents based on the concepts of past eugenics need to be reconsidered from the perspective of modern eugenics. However, modern eugenics does not absolutely guarantee the validity of eugenic selection. Opponents can still argue that even modern eugenics has problems and that eugenic selection is wrong. As technology advances, understanding the essence of the debate is crucial to avoid futile arguments and foster constructive discussion. Therefore, recognizing that past and modern eugenics are different is extremely important.
