Advances in human cloning technology have opened up the possibility of curing hereditary diseases and overcoming disabilities, but the coercive and prejudicial nature of eugenics in the past has raised controversy. Modern eugenics is a far cry from the past, based on voluntary choice and scientific evidence, but debate still rages over ethical issues and potential risks.
Since modern biology opened the door to the possibility of human cloning, many people have been excited about its benefits, hoping that it will solve some of the challenges of modern medicine, such as genetic diseases and disorders. At the same time, however, human cloning has sparked a debate among experts from all walks of life, as concerns have been raised about the possible harms of the technology, including ethical issues. Proponents and opponents of human cloning argue on a variety of ethical, technological, religious, and commercial grounds, but it’s hard to say which side is entirely correct, as the differences in stance stem from personal values. However, in order to accurately convey the arguments for and against, it’s important to understand the nature of the terminology used, which is why we’ll focus on the issue of eugenic selection.
The concern about eugenic selection through genetic manipulation is one of the key issues in the debate over human cloning. Proponents argue that human cloning research is not intended to create a “Superman” or “Wonder Woman” through genetic selection, but rather to reduce the risk of a child suffering from a disability or genetic disease. On the other hand, opponents like Leon Kass warn that if human cloning based on genetic manipulation becomes widespread, people will overuse eugenic selection to eliminate recessive traits from the reproductive process, leaving only dominant traits. The U.S. National Bioethics Advisory Committee also points out that using cloning technology to create a child would give parents the right to choose their child’s traits, allowing eugenic practices that could undermine important social values.
In fact, eugenics theories have been used to justify the Nazi genocide of Jews and the oppression of people of color, leading to racism and eugenics. This has led to eugenics being viewed as a blind ideology and has caused a great deal of public opposition. Therefore, the arguments against paving the way for eugenics through human cloning seem to be valid, and it’s natural for people to be opposed to human cloning. However, it is important to understand that “eugenics” in this context is not the same as eugenic selection in the past. In order to make an informed judgment about human cloning, we need to look beyond past eugenics objections and recognize that modern eugenics is inherently different from the past.
First, historical eugenics and modern eugenics differ in their means, ends, and methods. Eugenics of the past aimed to improve the genetic traits of entire populations, ignored individual rights in the process, used government coercion to restrict or promote parental reproduction, and relied on overly simplistic scientific premises that were biased by race and class. Modern eugenics, on the other hand, is based on well-researched scientific findings with the goal of treating genetic diseases or enhancing certain traits in individuals. The process is voluntary for individual families and, from a utilitarian perspective, is likely to be socially positive.
Second, there is a difference in the validity of the research on who is being eugenicized. Eugenics in the past made the mistake of assuming that white cultures oppressed people of color, including black people, and that skin color was a recessive factor in eugenics. This was based on ignorance of the scientific fact that skin color is merely the result of a race’s adaptation to its environment. Eugenics in the past lacked genetic research, which made it less valid. Modern eugenics, on the other hand, has a clearer understanding of the role of genes and inherited diseases through research, which makes genetic correction scientifically sound. As long as voluntary participation is guaranteed, the genes that cause hereditary diseases can be precisely adjusted.
Third, while eugenics in the past was practiced as a government policy with specific intentions, modern eugenics can be considered a natural part of human life. Whereas in the past eugenics was seen as a forced and taboo subject, in modern society, eugenics can be seen as an implicit phenomenon. For example, people tend to choose good-looking and healthy mates in order to improve the genetic traits of their offspring, which is not so different from the basic concept of eugenics, where humans seek to improve the traits of their offspring. Selecting a particular stallion to produce a superior racehorse, or selectively breeding puppies for desired traits, are also examples of eugenic selection. Modern eugenics is already an everyday phenomenon.
Fourth, there is also a difference in views on environmental influences and the reliability of eugenics. Eugenics in the past was biased toward genetic determinism, the idea that genes determine everything, and included the distorted claim that blacks are genetically inferior to whites. Today, while some scholars, such as Richard Dawkins, advocate for genetic determinism, there is a growing body of research that suggests that environment and individual effort also influence human potential. Modern eugenics takes these factors into account and seeks to reduce the risk of blind eugenic pursuit.
As such, modern eugenics differs significantly from the eugenics of the past in many ways. It is based on the voluntary decision of individuals to treat genetic diseases or enhance traits, it is based on the results of research on who is subject to genetic dominance, it is practiced naturally in modern life as opposed to the coercive policies of the past, and it takes into account environmental factors. Therefore, opponents’ eugenic concerns about human cloning, which are based on past concepts of eugenics, need to be reconsidered in light of modern eugenics. However, modern eugenics does not absolutely guarantee the validity of eugenic selection. Opponents can still argue that even modern eugenics is flawed and that eugenic selection is not right. As technology evolves, it is important to understand the nature of the debate in order to avoid flame wars and have a constructive discussion. Therefore, it is important to recognize that modern eugenics is different from the past.
