Eugenics
Moves to the Twenty-First Century
From the
elimination of undesirables from the human race; mass culling in the
name of saving the earth; to altering the genetic code of humanity with advanced
technology; eugenics has moved into a new era.
Comment:
This report is not meant to be a comprehensive history of eugenics.
The initial article that I was going to write was less than half of
what you will read here, but as I investigated this area I
discovered how ignorant I was as to how expansive this topic is.
Initially researching John D. Rockefeller, a Pandora's box of
information opened up, inevitably leading to the topic of this article. I hope that this information will help you come to a
greater understanding of this subject, and to warn others of its
grave dangers.
From the
elimination of undesirables from the human race; mass culling in the
name of saving the earth; to altering the genetic code of humanity
with advanced technology: Eugenics has moved into a new era.
What is
eugenics?
The word eugenics
comes from the Greek words eus (good or well) and genēs
(born) meaning "well born". The American Heritage dictionary of the
English language describes eugenics as, "The study of hereditary
improvement of the human race by controlled selective breeding." Sir
Francis Galton was the man who coined the term, and developed the
first eugenic policies. Galton expressed distress at the lack of
emphasis on the betterment of the human race during his time,
comparing men and women of his day to "pariah dogs". In 1864,
Galton wrote in an article titled "Hereditary
Character and Talent," published in
two parts in MacMillan's Magazine,
"If a twentieth part of the
cost and pains were spent in measures for the improvement of the
human race that is spent on the improvement of the breed of
horses and cattle, what a galaxy of genius might we not create!
We might introduce prophets and high priests of civilization
into the world, as surely as we can propagate idiots by mating
cretins. Men and women of the present day are, to those
we might hope to bring into existence, what the pariah dogs of
the streets of an Eastern town are to our own highly-bred
varieties."
The history of
eugenics in America is filled with controversy and harrowing stories
of forced sterilization throughout many U.S. states. In 2002
Mark R. Warner,
the governor of Virginia issued an apology for the thousands of
individuals that the state had sterilized from
1924 to 1979.
USA Today reported on the
governors statement,
"With the governor's statement
Thursday, Virginia becomes the only of the 30 states that
conducted eugenics sterilizations to apologize. There are
believed to be more than 60,000 eugenics victims nationwide.
'Today, I offer the
commonwealth's sincere apology for Virginia's participation in
eugenics,' Warner said.
'As I have previously noted,
the eugenics movement was a shameful effort in which state
government never should have been involved," he said. 'We must
remember the commonwealth's past mistakes in order to prevent
them from recurring.'"
The aristocratic, wealthy elite of
America played a central role in the development of eugenics in
America and abroad.
Two
such elite families are the Rockefellers and the Carnegies.
In 1902, Andrew
Carnegie founded the Carnegie Institute which among other things,
funded the Eugenics Record Office in America. The ERO (1910-1944) operated from
Cold Spring Harbor in New York. Eugenics policies, which led to the
sterilization of thousands of Americans, were developed in this office.
The Rockefellers,
perhaps more so, were also heavily involved with eugenics.
Rockefeller influence in American eugenics can be traced to the
beginnings of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratories. John D. Rockefeller,
along with Averell Harriman
gave $11 million to create
the facility in the early 1900's. Rockefeller influence also spread
overseas to Germany, where the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for
Psychiatry, and the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Eugenics,
Anthropology and Human Heredity resided. Much of the money used to
run these facilities
came from Rockefeller. These
weren't just average scientific institutes; the Kaiser Wilhelm
Institutes would become
the center for Nazi eugenics programs.
As documented by Gary Allen
in "The Rockefeller File" the Rockefellers
continue to give money to eugenics and population control related
organizations,
"In 1970, the
Rockefeller Brothers Fund gave $500,000 to the Population
Council. The Rockefeller Foundation gave ecology grants of
$10,000 to the New School for Social Research, and $10,000 to
the Population Reference Bureau."
In 1973, the
Rockefeller Foundation again gave $500,000 to the Population
Council and $25,000 to the Population Crisis Committee, while the
Rockefeller Brothers Fund gave $250,000 to the Population Council,
and $250,000 to the Population Institute.
The Population
Council was founded by John D. Rockefeller the 3rd in 1952. The
first president of the Council, Frederick Osborn, was appointed by
Rockefeller. Osborn was the leader of the American Eugenics Society,
and member of the Galton Society, founded in 1918.
Osborn stated in
the 1956 edition of "The Eugenics Review" that,
"...the reasons
advanced must be generally acceptable reasons. Let's stop
telling anyone that they have a genetically inferior genetic
quality, for they will never agree. Let's base our proposals on
the desirability of having children born in homes where they
will get affectionate and responsible care, and perhaps our
proposals will be accepted. It seems to me that if it is to
progress as it should, eugenics must follow new policies and
state its case anew, and that from this rebirth we may, even in
our own lifetime, see it moving at last towards the high goals
which Galton set for it."
Killing to save
the earth
Since the early
days of eugenics, a new "brand" of this science has emerged in
modern times. The environmental
branch of eugenics believes that, due to overpopulation, measures
must be taken to either impede population growth through various
eugenic policies, or take drastic measures to eliminate living human
beings from the earth. Unlike those who advocate eugenics to
strictly rid humanity of "undesirables," some advocate the culling
of humanity in general in order to save planet earth.
Many globalist initiatives surround environmental issues,
one of which has been population control and reduction.
John Glad, a
professor of Russian studies who has taught at several universities
and worked for the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars,
wrote a book titled "Future Human Evolution: Eugenics in the
Twenty-First Century." In the introduction, Glad writes,
"Eugenics views
itself as the fourth leg of the chair of civilization, the other
three being a) a thrifty expenditure of natural resources, b)
mitigation of environmental pollution, and c) maintenance of a
human population not exceeding the planet’s carrying capacity.
Eugenics, which can be thought of as human ecology, is thus part
and parcel of the environmental movement."
Notable quotes:
"In
order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate
350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say,
but it's just as bad not to say it." - Jacques Cousteau
"The world
has a cancer, and that cancer is man." - Merton Lambert,
former spokesman for the Rockefeller foundation
"...The
first task is population control at home. How do we go
about it? Many of my colleagues feel that some sort of
compulsory birth regulation would be necessary to
achieve such control. One plan often mentioned involves
the addition of temporary sterilants to water supplies
or staple food. Doses of the antidote would be carefully
rationed by the government to produce the desired
population size." - Paul Ehrlich, The Population Bomb,
p.130-131
"If I
were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth
as a killer virus to lower human population levels."
- Prince Phillip, Duke of Edinburgh, leader of the World
Wildlife Fund - quoted in "Are You Ready For Our New Age
Future?," Insiders Report, American Policy
Center, December '95
"A
total population of 250-300 million people, a 95%
decline from present levels, would be ideal." -
Ted Turner - CNN founder and UN supporter - quoted in
the McAlvany Intelligence Advisor, June '96
"Even
though it is quite true that any radical eugenic policy
will be for many years politically and psychologically
impossible, it will be important for UNESCO to see that
the eugenic problem is examined with the greatest care,
and that the public mind is informed of the issues at
stake so that much that now is unthinkable may at least
become thinkable." - Sir Julian Huxley, first director
general of UNESCO (1946-1948)
U.N. Complicit in Forced
Sterilizations There is
compelling evidence that the United Nations collaborated in
the forced sterilization of poor, rural women in Peru from
1995 to 1997.
In 2004 the
publication World Watch published an article titled, "Global
Population Reduction: Confronting the Inevitable,"
by Ken Smail, a professor in the Anthropology department of Kenyon
College in Ohio. In this article, Smail proposes that the earth's
carrying capacity will reach, or has reached already, its limit. In
what Smail calls a modern day "Malthusian dilemma", he cites
measures to merely slow population growth as being inefficient,
stating that,
"Looking past
the near-term concerns that have plagued population policy at
the political level, it is increasingly apparent that the
long-term sustainability of civilization will require not just a
leveling-off of human numbers as projected over the coming
half-century, but a colossal reduction in both population
and consumption."
[emphasis added]
Smail says that a
large scale global population reduction is inevitable, but that
there are two possible ways for this to happen,
"That there
will be a large-scale reduction in global human numbers over the
next two or three centuries
appears to be inevitable. The primary issue seems to be whether
this process will be under conscious human control and
(hopefully) relatively benign, or whether it will turn out to be
unpredictably chaotic and (perhaps) catastrophic."
The new eugenics
"Eugenic goals are
most likely to be attained under another name than eugenics."
- Frederick Osborn
Since the
founding of eugenics, the movement has changed,
but it has retained its core goals over the years.
Thomas H. Campbell of
the University of California believes that the eugenics model of Galton is outdated and impractical, as do many other scientists. Instead of relying on breeding
"better humans," without the intervention of technology,
many scientists believe that technological means should be employed to further our "evolution."
With the rise of advanced scientific technologies, the ability to
alter the genetic code of living organisms, and the augmentation of
human bodies has become a reality.
Some individuals who are involved with the modern eugenics movement see
the rise of these capabilities as an opportunity to create or alter
human beings to acquire the most "desirable traits" and
rid humanity of traits deemed "undesirable".
Is there a link between
eugenics and the Human Genome Project? If so, what does this mean
for future generations?
During the 34 years (1910-1944)
the Eugenics Records Office was active, it
collected information on specific human
traits in what was called The Trait Book. Also
collected was information on "Pedigree" families and their specific
traits. Today, the Human Genome project is in effect carrying on
what the Eugenics Records Office could only dream of.
James Watson, who began the
initial research for the Human Genome Project, directed the
operation from 1988-1992. Watson then served as director at the Cold
Spring Harbor Laboratory and would eventually become president of
the Laboratory in 1994. Watson's beliefs about the
betterment of mankind mirror those of past eugenics leaders.
Watson is quoted as saying at a
1998 UCLA conference that,
"I mean, sure, we have great
respect for the human species .... But evolution can be just damn
cruel, and to say that we've got a perfect genome and there's some
sanctity to it, I'd just like to know where that idea comes from.
It's utter silliness. And the other thing, because no one really has
the guts to say it, I mean, if we could make better human beings by
knowing how to add genes, why shouldn't we do it?"
Celera Genomics
Craig Venter caused many to
question his ethics when he moved to found Celera Genomics in 1998,
carrying
the study of the human genome into the private sector, using the
"shotgun strategy" to sequence the human genome at a faster clip
than the public project.
In a press release dated March 1,
2001, Celera Genomics announced that it signed a "multi-year
agreement" with AMDeC LLC to "allow member institutions to access
Celera's database information [Human Genome data] through its Celera
Discovery System." Some of those member institutions included
Rockefeller University, and Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. Interestingly, Rockefeller University was founded
by John D. Rockefeller in 1901 with a dedication to biomedical
research. Today, David Rockefeller, grandson to John D. Rockefeller
Jr., is the Chairman of
the Rockefeller University Council.
Venter further maddened fellow
scientists when he moved to patent human genes.
Serious ethical discussions took place after the first attempts to
patent human genes, but ultimately the decision stood to allow
patenting. The United States Patent and Trademark Office issued
guidelines on patenting. The American Medical Association
describes the guidelines,
"The rules are intended to
help end a bitter debate on gene patenting. These regulations
have put to rest any question about whether genes can be
patented at all -- making it clear that companies may indeed
patent both whole genes as well as pieces of genes..."
The guidelines allow patenting
when the those applying for a patent on a gene show a "utility" for
the gene. The AMA goes on to state that arguments were heard
opposing the decision based on the fact that these genes were not
created by anyone, and thus could not be patented. The AMA describes
how the Patent office rejected these ideas,
"The PTO firmly rejected this
notion based upon the fact that a gene may be removed from a
person, then a clone of that gene may be made in a machine,
which is then not a part of nature, but a product of the lab."
The apex of a futuristic eugenics
program comes with the advent of designer babies, embryos that
are genetically enhanced through various methods.
The knowledge gathered through the study of the human genome will,
according to some, lead to the ability to create such designer
babies.
In 2000, the BBC aired a
documentary called "Who's
Afraid of Designer Babies?" Featured in this clip is
Lee M. Silver, professor at Princeton University and former
investigator for Cold Spring Harbor (1980-1984).
The future is now: Genetically altered babies
already born
There is still doubt among
scholars and scientists that the Human Genome Project will lead to a
new eugenics program, such as designer babies. They cite limitations on current technology
and the need for further research as reasons for this position. However,
unknown to many, genetically altered babies have already been
born. The implications of this development are immense, but it has
received little attention. Because these babies were "created" in
the private sector and the lab did not receive government funding,
there were no governmental restrictions on what could be done. As
Wired magazine reported in
2001,
"Researchers have
genetically-altered humans for the first time, but experts
question the moral implications of tinkering with the unborn.
The
scientists weren't looking to create
genetically-enhanced Michael Jordans or
Anna Kournikovas. Rather, they repaired
the defective eggs of prospective
mothers by injecting them with DNA from
the eggs of healthy donors.
But
regardless of the scientists'
intentions, they've created the first
human offspring with changes to their "germline,"
or the genes they'll pass on to future
generations. In this case, the babies'
genes contain DNA from two women instead
of just one.
Researchers at the
Institute for
Reproductive Medicine and Science of
Saint Barnabas
in West Orange, New Jersey, have
achieved 15 births using the technique.
In their paper, published in the March
2001 issue of the
Human
Reproduction journal, they say
at least 15 additional healthy babies
have been born as a result of this
technique in other labs.
The
researchers performed the fertilizations
in 1997 and 1998. In March, they
published data on the results of DNA
fingerprint tests on two of the
children, each one year old, confirming
that they contain a small quantity of
additional genes not inherited from
either parent.
Most
scientists consider altering the
germline unethical, since no one knows
what the long-term effects might be. The
researchers, however, are confident the
technique is safe."
What
will the future look like?
What will the future hold in a
world in which eugenics, utilizing advanced technology, has become a
reality?
Lee Silver
describes in his book "Cloning
and Beyond in a Brave New World", a future scenario in which humanity splits into two distinct classes, the "GenRich"
and the "GenPoor."
"The GenRich--who account for 10
percent of the American population--all carry synthetic genes. Genes
that were
created in the laboratory....The GenRich are a modern-day hereditary
class of genetic aristocrats....All aspects of
the economy, the media, the entertainment industry, and the
knowledge industry are controlled by members of the GenRich class."
Those who are not as fortunate to
have access to genetic modification, called "Naturals" by Silver,
will "...work as low-paid service providers or as laborers."
Bertrand Russel says in "The
Impact of Science on Society" (1953) on pages 49-50 that,
"Gradually, by selective breeding,
the congenital differences between rulers and ruled will increase
until they become almost different species. A revolt of the plebs
would become as unthinkable as an organized insurrection of sheep
against the practice of eating mutton."
Hollywood has apparently been keeping up to
date on genetic technologies, adding their own theatrical twist. The movie "Gattaca",
released in 1997, portrays a despotic future world in which
designer babies are born every day, and the perfection of genes has become the center of
society.
Watch the Gattaca trailer:
Thomas H. Campbell
of the University of California believes that humanity is destined
to gain access to methods of "autoevolution." Writing in his paper,
"The
Moral Imperative of Our Future Evolution",
Campbell describes future technologies and their eugenic
implications. Campbell praises eugenics policies, and cites the
Human Genome Project as a positive development in the identification
of "defective" genes.
"We have
catalogued defective genes behind a variety of dreadful
neurological and metabolic disorders as parts of programs to
eliminate them eugenically. Our systematic mapping of the human
genome will identify many others. Everyone applauds the goal of
purging these defects in our heredity - notwithstanding quibbles
over the ethics of the techniques of amniocentesis, abortion and
even contraception. I emphatically embrace this eugenic program
even though its evolutionary impact is insignificant. Most
defective genes are rare, and their total elimination does
little for evolution except squeeze the range of variation of
humans."
"We probably
will begin our interventions into brain and embryonic
development with drugs and hormones and subsequently engineer
the desirable intrusions into the genome. Then, after a further
generation of accumulating biological information about
individual gene function, developmental pathways, and the neural
substrate of brain function, evolutionists probably will write
novel genes for these traits from scratch using a DNA
synthesizer."
"Of course, the
methods for evolving our genetics extend beyond biotechnology.
Ultra-sophisticated parallel processing computers and software
programs will predictively model how particular gene
configurations translate into phenotype, and how particular
phenotypic traits can be engineered into developmental pathways.
As a start, new computer technology is being developed today as
an integral part of the human genome project."
Campbell, like
others, says that future genetic technologies will be extremely
expensive, leaving the average person out of the loop. Campbell
expresses his approval of this expense due to the fact that only the
"most successful generative lines" will have access to these
technologies.
"The costs will
be enormous, far beyond what most people could afford. This has
kept our democratic society from appreciating that these
possibilities will be used and will be important. However, their
feasibility cannot be judged from what the average person will
be willing to pay to procreate. What matters are the resources
that the most successful generative lines will be able to apply
to their goals. A million dollars per conception seems a great
underestimate to me for the beings who hold evolution's
frontier."
The legacy of
Galton, John
D., and Carnegie lives on. Though terms have changed, the names
of organizations altered, the methods of propagandizing the public
reformed; the ideology behind eugenics is being
carried into the twenty-first century, and a new eugenics is creeping
into our society. Will humanity as we know it today become a fossil
as some have proposed? Public awareness is the key. The information
contained in this report needs to be spread far and wide, for the
future of humanity as we know it depends on it.
