Eugenics, the Future, and Science Fiction

Eugenics, which literally means "good seed," was a term coined by Sir Francis Galton in 1883, and grew out of Darwin's Theory of Evolution combined with the agricultural observation that the better the breeding, the better the livestock produced. Proponents of eugenics generally believed that mankind climbed to the top of the evolutionary heap through natural selection, but once there started sliding backwards -- devolving -- because modern science helped previously unfit humans not only to survive, but to reproduce; opponents, on the other hand, believed there was something intrinsically different between humans and the rest of nature, and those that supported eugenics were either ignorant of the many factors that go into the makeup of each person, or criminally negligent in their search for easy answers to the difficult problems of society. Vocal support for eugenics generally died as the Third Reich was being dismantled, the same time goose-stepping and small moustaches became unpopular -- having a crackpot endorse an idea is worse than a thousand experts rejecting it, a kiss of death that nothing can survive. No matter that the Third Reich used cosmetic eugenics -- those with pale skin, blue eyes and blonde hair were superior, while Jewish and dark-skinned races were less than animals -- still the logic had a certain pseudo-Aristotelian ring: Nazis practice eugenics, Nazis are evil, therefore eugenics is evil.

Mention eugenics nowadays to any group of people, and half will give you a blank stare, and of the remainder at least one will call you a Nazi. It really doesn't matter if you are for it or against it, even rationally discussing it will raise charges of burning crosses and dating David Duke's sister. Science fiction, normally a genre known for taking risks (Stranger in a Strange Land, Left Hand of Darkness, The Forever War), is oddly silent on the subject. In fact, there are probably more speculative fiction stories favorable to totalitarian regimes (Space Kings, Galactic Emperors, and the like) than ones that even contain the word eugenics. It seems odd that so many authors write fondly of kings and dukes and barons among the stars -- all the while ignoring the historical trend toward representative democracy -- and so few even approach the subject of having better children, either through eugenics or genetic engineering. This is one area in which science fiction seems meekly behind the times rather than bravely out in front, content to merely report what is already commonplace rather than striving to predict where it will all lead.

Well, I am not afraid of getting ahead of the parade, not out of any literary bravery, but out of sheer frustration at the lack of good stories on genetic engineering and the future of the human race. (I am firmly convinced that the majority of authors write in order to see the kind of stories they enjoy -- I am certain that if I had a never-ending supply of stories that excited me, I would spend all my time reading and never write another word.) For unless there is a Luddite backlash that makes the Taleban in Afghanistan look like the leaders of the Italian Renaissance, the future of mankind lies in the future of eugenics, which is genetic engineering.

What do I mean by that? Well, I believe that in twenty years it will be possible to drive down to the local clinic and consult a gene specialist. He'll take a small sample of tissue or blood, then come out a few minutes later with a chart and say, "Mr. Rouse, overall your gene sequence is quite healthy. However, the gene sequences here, here, and here predispose you to certain food allergies, this gene sequence makes it very easy to gain weight and much harder to lose it, this one would only be passed on to female offspring, but could make your grandson prematurely bald, this one gives your children brown curly hair, and this one here gives you a slightly elevated chance of diabetes." What would I do? Well, I wouldn't thank the doctor, then go home and forget about it. No way. Assuming hereditary gene therapy were readily available and within my means, I'd tell the doctor "Fix the allergies, obesity, baldness, and diabetes. Don't mess with the hair or eye color." In other words, I'd have everything fixed that could measurably affect his life, health, and intelligence, and ignore anything that was merely cosmetic. (The why fix the baldness gene? you might ask. You wouldn't if you ever had the top of your head sunburned!) It would be just like a better version of "me" were fathering the child-- that is the part where eugenics comes in; and besides, the cosmetic differences might work in his favor -- it would certainly get him noticed among all of the movie-star look-alikes.

I think parents will be cheerfully eradicating genetic abnormalities long before mainstream science fiction catches up, and by that time it will simply seem normal rather than Nazi-like. Does that leave any room science fiction stories dealing with eugenics? Absolutely. Referring to my model constitution (The Constitution of the North American Union), I could postulate an alternate history in which citizens are allowed as many children as they could support, while non-citizens are only allowed a single child -- and then only if the could support it -- before they are surgically sterilized, as are citizens who have more children than they can support. Eugenics would clearly play a part in such a story: citizens would have more children than non-citizens, making the genetic contribution to citizenship more prevalent in the gene pool; rich citizens would also tend to have more children than poor citizens (maybe with children as a kind of status symbol) spreading family fortunes around and making the genetic contribution to gathering wealth -- if any -- more widespread. It would also open up an intriguingly-tangled can of worms combining conflict with class divisions.

A liberal syndicated columnist like Molly Ivins, who weeps tears of blood whenever somebody somewhere becomes successful without feeling guilty, would probably have a mental meltdown were someone to suggest that having children is not an absolute right of every couple who can figure out where the male and female thingamajigs go, but a privilege that should only be granted to those couples able to support the result. Of course it would never be possible in the United States without another Constitutional Convention, but if citizenship were earned rather than given to anyone over eighteen with a pulse, it might be different. For it is not a natural right of humans to have more children than they can support, and it is an infringement on the rights of others to be forced to support the offspring of those without the wit or restraint to live within their means.

Notice that nowhere did I say we should deprive children anywhere of the basic necessities of life, for the child is blameless of the faults of the parents, and no matter what their background they are the future of our country. On the other hand, if parents are forced to rely on the generosity of society in order to support their children, it is in the interest of society to prevent the couple from having any more children. So a welfare mom and dad should get all the support they need in order to raise a happy and healthy child, but before they receive their first check they should go down to their local clinic and get the appropriate tubes tied. Deadbeat moms and dads should be dealt with the same way -- either support the child you helped create, or go down to the doctor and (in the words of one of my friends from college) "snip, snip, no bambino."

Can you name another class of people dependent on the largesse of a free society? How about criminals? If you are convicted of a felony, you get snipped. Before I suffer a rash of hate e-mail, I mean "felony" as defined by my Constitution of the North American Union, either a crime against the life or liberty of another, or three crimes against the property or freedom of action of another. Victimless crimes and drug abuse doesn't count, although perhaps the government should regulate the stronger drugs, even including a powerful contraceptive with the otherwise pure drug. That would prevent addicts from having children while addicted.

I can already hear the screams from the ACLU about it violating peoples rights. No argument there, of course it violates people's rights. On the other hand, the "victims" would have already been found guilty of greater violations of the rights of others and society before the punishment could be implemented. "John Doe, you have been convicted of the crime of Murder in the Second Degree. You will be transported to Oubliette State Prison, where you will be surgically sterilized and spend no less than ten years in incarceration, or until a prison psychologist declares you to be no longer a menace to a free society, whichever is later. Take him away!"

Even welfare parents are guilty of violating the rights of others -- no one should be forced to support other people's children any more than they should be forced to pay other people's taxes or buy other people's food. A judge in such a case might say, "John and Jane Roe, both of you are above the age of consent and have ready access to safe and effective contraceptives. Both of you realized that you could not afford to support a child, yet both of you violated the rights of a free society in order to give birth to baby Roe without any means of supporting the child, leaving it for community largesse to take care of it. Since you have proven yourselves incapable of making correct decisions with regard to raising a child, the ability to have another child shall be taken from you both by surgical sterilization. If at some future time you repay the amount given to you by the community to raise the child and the cost of the sterilization, plus interest, and you show the ability to raise another child through your own resources, you may petition the court in order to have the sterilization reversed. Good day, and please fill out the medical forms before you leave."

Of course, this will never happen. For one thing, no politician clever enough to get elected is brave enough to put forth such a plan. For another, while radical feminists might cackle with glee sterilizing deadbeat dads (it is a little-known fact that they cackle with glee every time they contemplate performing surgical procedures on men), they are prone to apoplexy at the thought that someone might remove the "choice" of having a child on welfare. While they vociferously insist that society should pay to help women who've made a mistake -- either to have abortions on demand, or to raise the child until adulthood -- they won't go one step farther and allow society to prevent the "mistakes" from occurring in the first place.

This is another spot where the miracle of genetic engineering can come to the aid of eugenics (and a cool novel might result). Genetically alter a highly-contagious airborne pathogen so that it only attacks and destroys haploid (i.e. sperm and egg cells) that match a certain genetic key. Make keys for every known genetic defect and abnormality, taking the necessary precautions so that it cannot mutate and affect good haploid or normal human cells, and release the pathogen among the population. A squiggly little sperm cell with sickle-cell anemia gets zapped before even getting close to fertilizing and egg cell. An egg cell with the gene for color blindness is killed before ever falling down the fallopian tube. Assuming that humans have no natural immunity to the virus, and that it is easily spread via multiple vectors, you would have a sudden drop in the population growth, if not a drop in the overall population -- and the children that were born would be as close to genetically perfect as science could get. (There's still the problem of environment, but let's solve one problem at a time.)

Still in the science fiction vein of thought, we could make one more alteration to the "perfect plague," especially if it cut down the fertility of the population too much: instead of killing a haploid cell with a genetic defect, the improved virus would take the offending gene sequence and randomly scramble it to a non-defective sequence (or at least a sequence not in the virus's collection of defective "keys".) Some of those sequences would be non-viable or harmful and would be removed by the next generation; some sequences would neither be good nor bad; and some would be beneficial, which would be passed to the next generation. The great thing about such a "DNA scrambler" would be the increase in genetic diversity. A few generations of randomizing bad DNA and leaving good DNA alone might give humans strengths and disease resistance we can't imagine -- at least it would be harder for a single disease to spread through the entire population (and yes, I realize this would mean continually improving the "perfect plague.").

Even with such an elegant solution to two important problems (overpopulation and eugenics), there are going to be some vocal critics. Some will bring up Ludwig von Beethoven's syphilitic father and drunken mother, and claim that pro-active gene therapy we will kill any chance of another Beethoven. This is a specious argument -- syphilis is a contagious disease, not a genetic one, and not one known to enhance musical ability; and while alcoholism might have a genetic component, it is doubtful it is linked to any "composer" gene. If anything, there will be a greater chance of giving birth to a perfectly healthy "Beethoven" than there was giving birth to one with so many problems.

Another argument against such universal gene therapy is that it violates the sanctity of life and/or interferes with God's plans for mankind. Quite frankly, gene therapy directed at sex cells violates the sanctity of life far less than abortion, and if you consider haploid cells as human beings (like the Catholic Church does), at least you are allowing healthy cells to survive (unlike most forms of birth control) only altering those that are defective. And as for interfering with "God's Plan for Mankind," God may allow genetic defects, but to claim that they are part of his plan comes suspiciously close to claiming God causes evil to happen to innocent children for His own obscure reasons. In which case, since God is omnipotent, He can certainly derail any plans to improve human genetics without any help from his human followers.

Probably the most persuasive argument against such universal eugenic gene therapy is: What happens if the carrier mutates, and starts attacking either healthy haploid cells, or normal diploid cells? While there is no way to reduce the probability of either occurrence to zero, there are things we can do to prevent such from happening. First, make the genetic structure of the virus extremely stable. Second, include a robust genetic error correction code so errors do not have a chance to propagate. Third, make the viral carrier triply redundant -- if all three copies are not identical, the virus dies. Fourth, give identical carrier viruses the genetic "key" for each other -- if the key fits but the genetic structure does not match, both viruses die. Incidentally, this will also allow tailoring an antibody specific to a virus should it become necessary. Fifth, make the virus extremely sensitive to something that doesn't affect normal human cells, but is not normally in the environment. Sixth, only target one defect at a time, and let the virus run at least a year before releasing a new one.

Since the virus has to multiply, and we don't want it to affect healthy human cells, we could have it "feed" either on some waste product in the human body, or use it to get rid of something we don't want anyway ("bad" fat, cholesterol, or some other unhealthy substance). It should be transmitted by both air and water -- it is easier to spread that way, and less chance that some group can prevent contracting it.

A possible scenario for its release is as follows: Scientists at the Centers for Disease Control have come up with the genetic keys that determine hemophilia in humans. They pull out their "workhorse" virus, one that feeds on "bad" cholesterol, and splice the genetic keys to it. After a series of computer models and controlled tests, the virus is introduced into municipal water supplies throughout the United States, Canada, Mexico, Japan, and the European Union.

In thirteen days it crosses the border between Russia and China, despite the latter's almost fanatical quarantine measures. In fourteen months, the virus is measured in the most remote human habitations in the Amazon and Africa. Two and a half years after its introduction, the last recorded case of hemophilia occurs in the mountains of Peru -- about the time the CDC releases the virus eradicating muscular dystrophy.

After a hundred years of vigorous pro-active gene therapy, we'll start tackling such things as male pattern baldness, nearsightedness, farsightedness, and enlarged prostates -- and we'll start seeing the genetic diversity resulting from the "gene scrambler" virus, perhaps in variations in eye, hair, and skin shades, hair that grows to a certain length and then stops, antibodies that are incredibly effective against certain diseases, further variations in height and weight, humans that are nocturnal rather than diurnal, and even stranger variations. Even with no other advance in medicine and no change in behavior, there is no reason that people cannot live to be 150 years old, especially if all the genetic causes of disease are eradicated -- a genetic predisposition to cancer, or to heart disease, or high blood pressure, or brittle bones no longer need be a death sentence.

Now for the science fiction possibilities:

They've solved the easy genetic diseases, but what if "criminal" genes aren't the only reason people turn on society? What if a scientist at the CDC has a grudge against mankind and access to the "perfect plague"?

The scrambler gene turns up some exotic ability in a newborn -- what happens to homo sapiens when homo superior turns up?

What are the limits to humanity? Beyond what boundary are we no longer human?

How do we decide what is a genetic defect, and what is merely a genetic difference (also known as the "homosexuality is genetic, but not a genetic disease" argument)? My view is that anything which enhances the ability of mankind to survive as a whole is a positive, and anything which decreases the ability of mankind to survive as a whole is a genetic defect. If it can be shown that homosexuality is a natural and positive response to overcrowding, thus lowering the birthrate, or that homosexuality helps mankind in some other way, by all means keep the gene(s) in the gene pool. If it is neutral with respect to mankind, then the choice to have or remove the gene should be left to the individual carrying the gene. If the genes are anti-survival, then we should remove them. Of course, all this is moot if homosexuality is based more on nurture than nature.