Eugenics: An Evolutionary Crutch

In the more distant future, it is entirely foreseeable for eugenics to be implicated for the purpose of abrogating the evolutionary damage caused by societal and legislative interference. It can be logically proven that humans are becoming weaker as a species because of the technological advancements that temporarily benefit us. Plato put it best when he said: “Necessity is the mother of invention”; we will soon be faced with that desideratum. Naturally eugenics will be the next scientific field to exploit for our self-interest.

Evolution has been unable to take its course in more recent history due to scientific advancements in the medical field, and social advancements in legislation. For instance, glasses have allowed for the survival of one demographic; ideograms, another. Those demographics have since polluted the proverbial gene pool by reproducing. Not that it would be the moral thing to do: to withhold beneficial technology from the masses; to do so would protect the natural progression of Darwin’s theories. As the moral beings we are, the less intelligent, strong, otherwise privileged individuals are protected and allowed to contribute negatively to our genetic diversity. Poor eyesight or stupidity could never be totally eliminated through noninterference, but they would be limited to an extent.

These are examples of phenotypes caused by multiple genes: making them difficult, if not impossible, to solve. Theoretically it is possible, but only to the extent the recessive genes will allow. Because some people who don’t show symptoms still carry the genes that cause them, it is impossible to eliminate some genetic diseases and abnormalities. For instance thalassemia, a genetic disease that affects 16% of Cyprus, is only carried by those who don’t show symptoms. 32% of the population potentially carries the disease. This 32% has absolutely no crossover with the 16% that show symptoms. Thalassemia is passed down in an autosomal co dominant fashion. So both parents must be carriers. Their children then have a 1 in 4 chance of inheriting the symptoms without the ability to pass the disease on, a 1 in 2 chance of not inheriting the symptoms, but still possessing the ability to spread it, and a 1 in 4 chance of inheriting nothing. This makes for many complications when pinpointing the carriers. The only solution is to diversify the gene pool of these people to lower the chances of both parents having the gene, or to decide who carries the gene through genetic counseling, and then legislating against sexual interaction within that demographic. This solution simply isn’t feasible, or moral.

It seems the only things we are scientifically capable of controlling are the traits that don’t really matter. Gender and eye color are fairly straightforward, yet provide no known benefit to society when controlled, so things as complicated as eyesight and intellect are nearing a level of impossibility when it comes to controlling. Basically, eugenics will be a failed attempt at correcting the symptoms of the errors we made by stunting our own evolution.