Eugenics and Leaf Cut-Outs

I recently read a post posted on the FedCan blog (Canadian Federation for the Humanities and Social Sciences, see it here) by Nathalie Ball of the University of Calgary, an article which re-peaked an old interest in philosophizing about eugenics. Something of the intricate nature of these leaf cut-outs seemed to resonate with this topic.

Coined by Sir Francis Galton, the easiest way to explain the concept is to consider positive and negative eugenics.

As Ball says in her post:

first, negative eugenics, that is, reducing the number of so-called undesirable genes within the population or, second, positive eugenics, that is, increasing the number of so-called ‘desirable’ genes within the population.

It's fairly easy to think of a few terrible ways this has been performed in the past, for example, in terms of negative genetics, from the sterilization of women with disabilities to the victims of the holocaust. Horrible things have been done for the "betterment" of the human race (as if we could ever really know what traits might be useful in the future?), but one would be foolish to say that a certain amount of eugenics continues on today.

Prenatal testing, for one, as well as in vitro fertilization provide a method of selection, of handpicking traits while discouraging others.

Now, Ball reminds us that one has to be careful in not to mistake the forced aspect, for example of sterilization, versus the voluntary aspect of terminating or keeping a pregnancy. Although there is certainly social pressure to find out, to attend to "prenatal counseling" and certain tests that are deemed "standards of care."

Society also has subtler ways of promoting certain families to have children while setting up barriers to others, as is seen in what is considered an acceptable marriage (sexual orientation, age, age gap, religious compatibility) and what is not.

Though for many, these thoughts are old news, and I think the most intriguing part of her article is when she moves on to the next topic:

We see, for example, a move towards beyond species-typical abilities beyond the ‘normal’ abilities (e.g. germline genetic enhancement, somatic genetic enhancements, and non-genetic enhancements). This poses an array of new questions. When new enhancements are created, should they be available to everyone, or only to those who are considered to be below the ‘species-typical norm’, or only those who can afford them? Who will be able to afford the ‘enhancement’ treatments?

Having spent my morning reading about the complexities of wait lists and marginalized groups, this rings a loud bell. We already see that access to care is not always fair, that it does not babysit your children while you go to your appointment, fill in for your low-wage job without benefits and it sometimes does not even cover its own costs. Ball continues, on this thought,

Enhancements may be unaffordable for some groups, and if only the wealthy can purchase them, then enhancements could add another measurement of inequity and marginalization – between the enhanced versus the unenhanced. Additionally, when enhancements are made available, what counts as ‘too enhanced’? Where do we draw the line? How we choose to answer any of these questions has implications for equity.

Beautiful Leaf cut-outs by Lorenzo Duran (website here) via CraftZine blog.