© 2001 Charles Montgomery
© 2001 The Urantia Book Fellowship
| Universal Religion: An Interfaith Presentation | Volume 3, Number 1, 2001 (Summer) — Index | Last Mountain In Vancouver |
Civilization is in danger when youth neglect to interest themselves in ethics, .sociolozy, eugenics, philosophy, the fine arts, religion,and cosmology. The Urantia Book, (UB 111:4.4)
Eugenics, u-JEN-iks, n. [Gr. eu, well, genus, race] The science that deals with the improvement of the hereditary traits of a race." - The New Webster Encyclopedic Dictionary, Copyright 1971
The Urantia Book encourages us to practice eugenics. While the word eugenics appears only once in The Urantia Book (UB 111:4.4), there are about two dozen statements that suggest we should begin seriously practicing eugenics on this planet. “Unrestrained multiplication of inferiors, with decreasing reproduction of superiors, is unfailingly suicidal of cultural civilization” (UB 79:2.7). Some people wonder whether The Urantia Book’s emphasis on eugenics simply reflects the tenor of the times in which it was writ ten, and whether it is still relevant. Others are sure it was intended to endure. The first question people often ask is: “Who will play God?” or “Who will decide who gets to reproduce?” This is a knotty problem that even The Urantia Book acknowledges: “The difficulty of executing such a radical program on Urantia consists in the absence of competent judges to pass upon the biologic fitness or unfitness of the individuals of your world races” (UB 51:4.8). But according to the book, the problem is not insurmountable, for it goes on to say: “Notwithstanding this obstacle, it seems that you ought to be able to agree upon the biologic disfellowshiping of your more markedly unfit, defective, degenerate, and antisocial stocks” (UB 51:4.8).
Eugenics was advocated by Plato in ancient times and Sir Francis Galton in the 19th century. By the early part of the 20th Century, the science of heredity had developed. The largely predictable transmission of inheritable traits, good and bad, from parent to child was widely recognized, and eugenics became a popular cause, attracting many intelligent people. Unfortunately, one of those it attracted was Adolph Hitler. His scheme for developing a Master Race was to exterminate people whom he considered inferior. Entire populations were rounded up and transported to death camps. Few survived. Since then, eugenics has been viewed as a pseudo-science at best, and cruel racism at worst. Hitler gave eugenics a bad name, and set its cause back at least 60 years.
Populations in the highly developed countries are growing much more slowly than in the less developed countries. Similarly, within any given nation, the higher classes are repro.ducing far more slowly than are the lower classes. According to Economics Professor Edward M. Miller, Professor of Economics and Finance at the University of New Orleans, a man and woman in the U.S., who are college graduates can be expected to have 1.6 children. A high school graduate couple will have 2.0 children, and a couple who did not finish high school will have 2.6 children, on average. This does not seem like a huge difference, but I have generated the following table based on these data to show that the multiplier effect over time is tremendous. The projection assumes the current reproductive rates for these groups and their offspring remains constant, and disregards any upward mobility:
Number Of Offspring Produced By 100 People
| Group, Birthrate per couple, (and I.Q.) |
After 1 generation |
After 3 generations |
After 10 generations |
|---|---|---|---|
| High School Dropouts 2.6 per couple, (81 IQ) |
130 | 220 | 1,379 |
| High School Graduates 2.0 per couple, (95 IQ) |
100 | 100 | 100 |
| College Graduates 1.6 per couple, (111 IQ) |
80 | 51 | 11 |
This is a shocking scenario, an extremely dysgenic trend. After ten generations, 100 high school dropouts will balloon to 1,379, while 100 college graduates will shrink to 11. Unless we reverse the trend, I fear that in ten short generations, the groups who comprise the leadership of the human race will all but vanish. Remember, “the real jeopardy of the human species is to be found in the unrestrained multiplication of the inferior and degenerate strains of the various civilized peoples” (UB 82:6.11). It makes us want to do something to reverse the trend. It reminds us of the statement concerning conservation of the higher spiritual types on our planet. “This is an alarming picture, and the supervising personalities of Satanic look with favor upon the proposals of some of your more immediate planetary supervisors who advocate the inauguration of measures designed to foster and conserve the higher spiritual types of the Urantia races” (UB 110:4.6).
Global implementation of ethical and effective eugenics programs will be a huge step toward progress for mankind. In time, poverty and crime will be all but elimi-nated. Science, industry, the arts, philosophy and education will flourish. But the barriers to acceptance are great.We are loath to judge and categorize people. We recoil against words such as unfit, defective, degenerate and inferior. We are shocked when we read in The Urantia Book that “poverty and dependence can never be eliminated if the defective and degenerate stocks are freely supported and permitted to reproduce without restraint” (UB 71:3.8).
We hesitate to apply the words defective and de-generate to fellow human beings. We are more comfortable saying certain individuals are disadvantaged, marginalized, challenged, low-income or unemployed. It’s time we faced facts as The Urantia Book does. It’s time we recognized and openly agreed that some people are unfit to have children, and that these people must be encouraged, cajoled, tempted, and if necessary forced to refrain from reproducing. It’s time for those who have seen the truth to speak up.
Eugenics is a real science, as any breeder of thorough. bred animals knows, and it can be applied to humans as effectively as to dogs and horses. Heredity is powerful and inescapable. The apple does not fall far from the tree, as the saying goes. While a genius may spring occasionally from average parents, and gifted parents may occasionally produce a dull child, in the vast majority of instances, offspring are very much like their parents. “Will Urantia rulers have the insight and courage to foster the multiplication of the average or stabilized human being instead of the extremes of the supernormal and the enormously increasing groups of the subnormal?” (UB 68:6.11).
Studies of identical twins separated at birth and raised in different families show clearly that heredity plays a stronger role than environment in determining ability. The intelligence of such twin pairs remains persistently similar even when raised in households of highly divergent intellectual atmospheres. While a good environment is extremely important in shaping a child, nature is even more powerful than nurture. Therefore, to design a good eugenics program, all we need do is examine the parents and prevent those who are unfit to parent and/or unfit to be productive members of society from reproducing. Fortunately, there is a strong correlation between genetic potential and actual achievement.
Eugenics need not and should not be cruel. Hitler’s regime of mistreatment and killing was singularly inhumane. Reproduction of those deemed unfit can he curtailed by lawful and humane means. Extermination is not an ethical option. The most coercive methods I would condone include forced sterilization and forced abortion. These are generally harmless to the person undergoing the procedure, and leave the person free to live a meaningful life. And even these I would not advocate except in extreme circumstances, such as when a fetus is exposed to crack cocaine in utero. In most cases, a system of laws, licenses, social pressure and cash incentives will be sufficient to ensure curtailment of undesirable reproduction. Eugenics need not be inhumane. It can and should respect the individual.
Eugenics need not be racist. There are feebleminded, indolent, and defective Northern Europeans, and there are feeble-minded, indolent and defective Jews, just as there are brilliant and productive individuals in both ethnic groups. A well-known principle of genetics states that there is more variation within a group than between two groups. Moreover, the entire construct of race is questionable. The differences between the original six Sangik races were minimal, and there has been so much intermixing that no pure races remain. Therefore, an ethical eugenics program must focus on the qualities of the individual, not the ethnic, racial or color group to which that individual belongs, for to do otherwise would be both unscientific and unfair, and could be counterproductive to the eugenic purpose. Eugenics need not be racist. It can and should be colorblind.
Eugenics need not be fascist. Hitler’s Nazi regime was a dictatorship. The common people had no vote and kept silent, fearing for their lives, though many disapproved. The answer to the question “Who will play God?” All of us! We will decide as a society who gets to reproduce, through our democratic processes, and through our elected and appointed representatives. Eugenics policies should guarantee equal protection and observe due process. We start modestly, with things most of us can agree on, such as a minimum age for having children. We enact these requirements into law, and use our existing family courts and child-protection agencies to administer them. We already play God in this way when we award adoptions, or place children in foster care homes. Later on we add tests for drug addiction and financial responsibility. We build strong families by denying the unfit the right to parenthood. Gradually we limit the rights of prospective parents as we protect the rights of the child and the interests of society. As perceptions change, the force of public opinion and peer pressure will become a powerful enforcer, as it has in China, where the government mandated one-child-per-couple policy is now generally accepted. Eugenics need not be draconian. It can and should be democratic.
Children should have rights, distinct from adults, and that idea is being recognized more and more throughout the world. There is even an organization called Voices for the Unborn, although it has a pro-life stance. Other groups focus on the child’s right not to be abused or exploited. My prescription for a bill of rights for the unborn includes the right not to be born, unless certain conditions are present, including being wanted, an adult mother and father trained in child-rearing, financial ability and freedom from drugs and disease. If all children are to have these rights, then conversely, some adults’ rights must be curtailed, so that they cannot give birth unless these conditions are present. “The advancing ideals of family life are leading to the concept that bringing a child into the world, instead of conferring certain parental rights, entails the supreme responsibility of human existence” (UB 84:7.25). We currently give parents the right to freely procreate regardless of the welfare of the child. To limit that right will require a major shift in attitudes, and will require some mechanism of implementation. One method that has been suggested from time to time is a system of parent licenses. The licensing criteria mirror the rights of the child:
The determination of who shall reproduce need not be based on an examination of genetic material. It is sufficient and politically safer to examine the circumstantial readiness of prospective parents, by applying criteria such as the five listed above. People will more readily agree about the need to protect the child’s right to good parenting than the need to curtail the reproductive rights of those unfit to parent. Any overt attempt to screen genetically would, in the present climate, be met with fierce opposition. For the time being we will be more successful putting genetics in the closet and designing social policies to ensure better circumstances for the newborn child.
If we made sure the above five circumstances were present for every child born, what a changed and wonderful world it would be! Every child would have a welcoming, mature, well-prepared mother and father, the necessities of life, and a healthy and peaceful home. Remember that “it is the divine will that men and women should find their highest service and consequent joy in the establishment of homes for the reception and training of children, in the creation of whom these parents become copartners with the Makers of heaven and earth” (UB 167:5.7).
If we combine the absence of all five circumstances, we get the worst case scenario-an infant that is crack-addicted and AIDS-infected, with a neglectful and abusive, teenage mother on welfare, and with no father in sight. This picture is in stark contrast with the ideal.
After asking “Who will play God,” and “Who shall reproduce,” people want to know “Flow can we implement an ethical eugenics program.” Again the answer is that implementation must be democratically agreed upon and humanely administered.
We are told that, on worlds settled in light and life, “reproduction is regulated in accordance with planetary requirements and innate hereditary endowments: The mortals on a planet during this age are divided into from five to ten groups, and the lower groups are permitted to produce only half as many children as the higher. The continued improvement of such a magnificent race throughout the era of light and life is largely a matter of the selective reproduction of those racial strains which exhibit superior qualities of a social, philosophic, cosmic, and spiritual nature” (UB 55:6.3). Whether by family planning, cash incentives, licensing, or some other means, doubt not that some way of regulating reproduction will eventually be employed. Let us be among those brave souls who are even now openly advocating ethical eugenic policies that are blind to color, democratically derived, and humanely implemented. In so doing, we will be furthering the divine plan for our planet.
Charles “Chick” Montgomery has a BA (cum laude) from Harvard and a Master’s in Public Administration from U.S.C. He has been a senior city planner, university instructor and Renaissance Fair concessionaire. Chick has been reading The Urantia Book since 1969.
| Universal Religion: An Interfaith Presentation | Volume 3, Number 1, 2001 (Summer) — Index | Last Mountain In Vancouver |