There isnít much doubt that the theory of eugenics is an unpopular one. Any individual holding a belief in eugenic practice is generally considered either ill or incorrect. Funnily enough, as Satanists, just such accusations have been levelled at us in the past, with negligible evidence that said detractors have any idea of what a eugenicist actually subscribes to. Bearing that in mind, itís perhaps time that a few pertinent bits and pieces are ironed out, so that those who have a problem with the championing of eugenics can at least have an objective definition to petition against. Honestly, Iím doing you a favour.
To start with, here is what the dictionary definition states:
Eugenics: The study of or belief in the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population, esp. by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics).
To those with even a passing interest in the animal kingdom, this is nothing new; itís just called selective and/or pure breeding. For those with even a passing interest in Satanism, it would appear obvious why Satanists would espouse such ideals. With humans being merely another species of animal, there is nothing contradictory in hoping that a percentage of potential within a human would become unobstructed if it didnít have certain physical hurdles to jump. Increased motor functions, advanced intelligence and more robust physical specimens would all be part of the beneficial product of humans breeding selectively. Perhaps at least carefully?
But this is where the issues arise. Because theories of eugenics have been administrated before, always accompanied by differing scales of genocide, the term is considered a biological landmine. The enforcement of such policy would lead us straight back to Nazi Germany, an unpalatable consequence or result for the vast majority of people; after all, nobody likes totalitarian regimes. But those who decry eugenics so quickly are typically making the wrong associations. No Satanist is suggesting genocide on any scale whatsoever, or the suggestion of a totalitarian regime that enforces the policy by violence, intimidation and murder. Nope, not once. What is being suggested is that the idea of consenting adults reproducing with a mind on better prospects for the arriving infant can only make sense. While totalitarian governments kill detractors, Satanists are suggesting that an increase in education on the subject of eugenics could remove the flawed tag that the term carries and, subsequently, allow prospective parents to make a more informed choice. Unfortunately, this proclamation at any level would see political revilement come from all angles Ė claims of racism, sexism, ageism, bigotry and all the other ďismísĒ and ďistísĒ would be expected fare. But to suggest that any person should believe that the only desirable traits worth breeding are found in their own race, would be an erroneous one. White people have intellects, athletes, artists and mediators. And irrespective of what you happen to believe, predominantly black and Asian cultures have such qualities as well. In other words, the spectre of mindless racism is immediately recognised and exorcised for what it is; putting words into mouths, where no such words would otherwise exist, purely to avoid objectively researching the merits of eugenic theory. Because all races, whether interbreeding occurred or not, would still have the same opportunities to breed what a culture considers desirable traits.
But, I mentioned education. And education shows that if it were only as simple as that! Unfortunately, the passing of genes is not as predictable as the above passage makes it sound. By two intellectual people passing genes to their offspring, they are not guaranteeing that the child will share a similar (or, perhaps, better) intellect. This is because certain genes only work to such an effect in combinations. Single genes rarely do anything on their own and it is, in fact, the combinations of genes that work simultaneously that will have the greatest effect. Because this, therefore, cannot be counted upon, the ďexact scienceĒ of eugenics becomes an oxymoron. Now, without wishing to overcomplicate a topic that Iím not an expert on myself, let me put this point another way. If you want a cup of coffee (intellectual child), then certain ingredients (genes) will be needed make this happen. First of all youíll need the coffee beans, then youíll need the water, then youíll require milk and finally youíll need sugar. Naturally, many people like different cups of coffee. Some would like to put in extra sugar, some perhaps a bit of cream on top; perhaps you like to lace your coffee with vanilla, or maybe you like an espresso shot. The point Iím making, is that the more specific you want to be, the more ingredients (or, in the current context, genes) you will require. In saying that, the only two ingredients you actually need for a cup of coffee, are the beans and the water. Therefore, when recombinating genes into a preferred sequence, it is best for the prospective parent not to overcomplicate what is required. Cutting a very long story short, this line of thought, which is biologically sound, seems to be where the straw man of eugenics is blown down. Because no two parents can guarantee that their offspring will end up having the desired genetic trait, there is no point in trying to true breed children.
Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa sweet child Ďo mine. Not so fast.
The biologist who makes such a claim isnít actually doing his sums correctly, which is a scientific heresy. First and foremost, the suggestion that eugenics is a banal practice on the basis of not being able to guarantee heritable traits, is simply wrong. If two parents are passing on the same genetic combination that allows for intelligence to blossom, the reproduction of that combination sees its chances increasing. If only one parent was to pass down his ďbrainsĒ, the combination is far less likely. There is no guarantee, of course, but the percentages start to go in your favour. Even the simplest of mathematical equations shows this to be true; if we add two (one intelligent parent) and two (another intelligent parent), we are capable of receiving two, three or four of the genetic combination points. If we add two (one intelligent parent) to zero (a stupid parent), we end up with either two or one of our points. The point should be clear. Eugenic decriers are also deliberately ignoring just how such practices have worked with animals of other species. While speciesism is as prevalent as any other form of bigotry, that doesnít mean that such sloppy analysis should be excused. Again, there is no guarantee of how the genes will recombine, but the evidence for the increase in percentage is obvious to anyone who cares to look. Of course, we need only look at the first sentence of the dictionary definition again to see why this is still a relevant ideology; the belief in the possibility of improving qualities is what weíre talking about. And because small percentages tend to become bigger percentages over time, I think the practice of eugenics is a particularly pertinent one.
Actually, getting back to the definition for a second it would appear Iíve only dealt with one facet; positive eugenics. Funnily enough, because this is the least robust of the two types from a scientific viewpoint, its concentration can hardly be considered a coincidence. While Iíve established that eugenics is a worthwhile activity from a positive angle, that it should be worthwhile from a negative point of view is a no-brainer. Once again, however, the problem isnít one of comprehension or application; itís one of politics. When we discuss the eradication of ďundesirableĒ traits, politicians and liberals will typically mouth off about undesirable traits translating into skin colour. A government will only want its white/black/Asian participants to breed, thus breeding out the other races. Once again, common sense does not prevail. Personally, I would consider negative traits to be heritable diseases such as cancer, Parkinsonís or Alzheimerís Ė in fact you can take your pick. Once again, genetic theory validates this claim. If genes for an illness are not passed down whatsoever, there is no way that such illnesses can propagate in offspring (other than serious mutation, of which the chances are extremely negligible, if they exist at all). In this instance, the possibility that I commented on earlier becomes the elusive guarantee that people seem to believe eugenics cannot provide.
Of course, Iíve yet to touch on the environmental effects of eugenics. If we have two intellectuals and/or athletes, the environment that will be provided for any offspring will be conducive to the talent theyíre likely to have. And while environmental factors play a far smaller part in the influences on children than most people realise, conscientious parents will ensure that the correct opportunities are provided for their children to make best use of their talents. All in all, I happen to think that the practice of eugenics is one that is particularly desirable for our species.
But I havenít dealt with the implications of making such a move, politically and this is deliberate. Because widespread views on what is to be considered desirable would bedevil any lists that were drawn up, Iím advocating these ideas to be ones of personal choice. If a person wants the best for their children (whether theyíve had them or not), they have the right to be introduced to a less biased idea of eugenics so that it can be given fair and due consideration. If one were to pursue eugenics from a political angle, however, the implementation wouldnít be as complicated as you might think. Temporary sterilization for children when they are at the beginning of their reproductive lives would be a huge start and one that I would personally champion. Not only would this have hugely beneficial social implications (smaller school classes, less hospital beds being taken up, less people on welfare, more jobs), itís the simplest way to ensure those without the necessary responsibility wonít breed. Iím sick to the bone every time I see a twelve or thirteen year old pregnant in the newspapers, as they are utterly flaunting the law and the law seems disinterested in doing something about it. And while there would be an outcry that civil liberties are being impinged, any reasonable moral person would need to consider the rights of an unborn child to be born into an environment that will help potential to blossom. Personally, I have no time for third-generation welfare dependents who continue to breed in order to get more money from the state. Again, eugenics could be a first step toward eliminating such things.
Iím going to finish here, as this is merely intended as an introduction to eugenics and a starting point to the understanding why Satanists would support it. You are only advised to read this little musing and think about the very real possibilities that go with it, without considering it an exhaustive dissertation. Under no circumstances should you start making assumptions or insinuations based on what Iíve said, for I hate having words put in my mouth by witless complainants. Just read, interpret and think Ė for some of you, that wonít be a challenge.
For others, however, it will.