15 March 2013

Eugenics and the Future of Human Evolution

Eugenics has a bad reputation. Most people either associate the idea with Nazi Germany or Brave New World, but as a proponent of eugenics myself, I think that both of those are examples of precisely what not to do.

First, I do not think any eugenics program should be mandatory. In fact, having the majority of the population, at least 65%, probably more, continue to play reproductive roulette is necessary to keep a strong control group of humans with plenty of random mutations and a great diversity of traits. More importantly, forcing someone to reproduce (or not!) is a disgusting violation of the Right of Liberty. The ends of such a program most definitely do not justify those means.

Second, I think that sterilizations are a rather ineffective way of promoting better offspring. Sterilizations are a very crude method: it is very unlikely that ever gamete an individual produces has the negative allele(s) that the eugenicist wishes to suppress. There are most likely plenty of traits the eugenicist favors present in gametes that do not contain the negative allele(s); these should be selected for producing zygotes, rather than a full ban.

Third, the current reproductive roulette cannot realistically be channeled to produce superior offspring. Simply, you cannot realistically hope that all the children of a certain parent will have the traits you wish to promote if they reproduce through the traditional method, unless the trait in question is superdominant (and it probably isn't).

My view on eugenics is such: using modern genomics technology to ensure that the offspring of a perfectly normal couple is the best possible offspring, given the genomes of the parents.

In more detail, a couple wishing to have children would pay for tests to map their genomes. (In respect to the cost of raising a child, these are relatively cheap. Basic tests are now within the monthly salary of a middle-class adult.) From these, they would go through a sort of genetic counselling, discussing which traits (such as deleterious recessives) which they wish to avoid passing on, and which they would like their children to have. Two gametes would be selected based on these preferences for in-vitro fertilization, and the zygote implanted in the mother-to-be for an otherwise normal pregnancy.

There are two important things I must say about this method:

  • Every step of this operation was undertaken voluntarily, and every service provided by private firms. The state is uninvolved.
  • As a consequence of the state's uninvolvement, there will not be a national direction of a eugenics program. This will not create a reduction of useful mutations, as different couples will usually select for different traits.
Eugenics is condemned for being coercive. It needn't be.