Eugenics
I'd soon as not write this post. It would be some how fitting that way, this being the blog that it is. I first mentioned I would write this post back on Friday, August 8th, 2008. That's when I had all my inspiration and ideas. And I quickly wrote down the barest minimum of those ideas, and set it aside; I'll set the date for one week, I said, and save it as a draft. So here it is, one, nay, two, nay, three, nay, four, nay, five weeks later and here it is. Or the best I felt like writing so many days later.
The main problem with eugenics is that it has been associated in the public consciousness with "miscegenation" (what an ugly word-- clearly constructed to have negative connotations-- for such a beautiful thing) and racial cleansing/purity. I think this is another one we can blame on the Nazis.
But I subscribe to the Khan Noonien Singh theory of genetics, of which I derive the name from the character played by Ricardo Montalbán in the original Star Trek series episode "Space Seed" as well as the second Star Trek feature film The Wrath of Khan. I'll mostly focus on him as he appears in the television episode as no argument in favour of eugenics can be made with that awful hair he has in the movie.
Khan is a genetically-engineered übermensch bred free of mental and physical defects, as well as strong leadership abilities, from a pool of Latin and Indian stock. The key here is race diversity. From all accounts, while certainly ambitious (possibly wildly so), Khan was a benign ruler. Thus, I rule that Star Trek lands firmly on the pro-eugenics side. So just remove the dastardly moustache twirling and plans of world domination and we have a pretty good idea of the (theoretical) benefits of eugenics.
Then for an opposing viewpoint, we have the 1990s film Gattaca. I don't recall Gattaca ever addressing the race card, but apparently Blair Underwood was in the cast, so I think I can unequivocally declare the film not viewing genetics from an anti-miscegenation (grrrr) viewpoint. Gattaca's issue with eugenics is that it will inspire a new class system, one where the genetically-engineered will be earmarked for all the highest positions while any normal person (from now on referred to as "normies") will hit a glass ceiling. Further, these earmarks will be decided by probability calculator, so that any normies who exceed their station, any Ethan Hawkes if you will, will be put back in their place.
Of course, another real problem with eugenics is the same problem that surfaces any time one cultural group becomes assimilated into a bigger wider one. The death of the culture, language, heritage of the original group, and all the unique aspects that set it aside. See Modern China and the reason I was so politically offended by the movie Hero for more.
As a normie, among normies who have proceeded as a species for the past however many epochs, its hard to say if I am in support of any real form of eugenics, whether it be traditional or liberal, as it risks limiting genetic diversity. But I will say that I like to consider myself a Social Darwinist. Then again I consider myself a lot of things.
The main problem with eugenics is that it has been associated in the public consciousness with "miscegenation" (what an ugly word-- clearly constructed to have negative connotations-- for such a beautiful thing) and racial cleansing/purity. I think this is another one we can blame on the Nazis.
But I subscribe to the Khan Noonien Singh theory of genetics, of which I derive the name from the character played by Ricardo Montalbán in the original Star Trek series episode "Space Seed" as well as the second Star Trek feature film The Wrath of Khan. I'll mostly focus on him as he appears in the television episode as no argument in favour of eugenics can be made with that awful hair he has in the movie.
Khan is a genetically-engineered übermensch bred free of mental and physical defects, as well as strong leadership abilities, from a pool of Latin and Indian stock. The key here is race diversity. From all accounts, while certainly ambitious (possibly wildly so), Khan was a benign ruler. Thus, I rule that Star Trek lands firmly on the pro-eugenics side. So just remove the dastardly moustache twirling and plans of world domination and we have a pretty good idea of the (theoretical) benefits of eugenics.
Then for an opposing viewpoint, we have the 1990s film Gattaca. I don't recall Gattaca ever addressing the race card, but apparently Blair Underwood was in the cast, so I think I can unequivocally declare the film not viewing genetics from an anti-miscegenation (grrrr) viewpoint. Gattaca's issue with eugenics is that it will inspire a new class system, one where the genetically-engineered will be earmarked for all the highest positions while any normal person (from now on referred to as "normies") will hit a glass ceiling. Further, these earmarks will be decided by probability calculator, so that any normies who exceed their station, any Ethan Hawkes if you will, will be put back in their place.
Of course, another real problem with eugenics is the same problem that surfaces any time one cultural group becomes assimilated into a bigger wider one. The death of the culture, language, heritage of the original group, and all the unique aspects that set it aside. See Modern China and the reason I was so politically offended by the movie Hero for more.
As a normie, among normies who have proceeded as a species for the past however many epochs, its hard to say if I am in support of any real form of eugenics, whether it be traditional or liberal, as it risks limiting genetic diversity. But I will say that I like to consider myself a Social Darwinist. Then again I consider myself a lot of things.
Labels: 1990s, china, class conflict, cultural genocide, eugenics, gattaca, genetics, glass ceiling, godwin's law, hero, nazi, probability, racism, social darwinism, star trek, superman
posted by justin | 9:00 a.m.
|
3 comments
