© 2014 Carmelo Martíne, Olga López, Eduardo Altuzarra, Santiago Rodríguez and Andrés Pérez
© 2014 Urantia Association of Spain< /p>
| Luz y Vida — No. 36 — Presentation | Luz y Vida — No. 36 — March 2014 — Index | Death according to The Urantia Book |
¶ Carmelo
In the dictionary of the RAE, eugenics is defined as: “Application of the biological laws of heredity to the improvement of the human species”.
The UB talks about superior and inferior races and the need to improve the human races without any shame or prejudice, to the point that it surprises and even shocks some.
I have searched and selected some quotes about it. These are: UB 49:1.7, UB 51:4.8, UB 52:2.11, UB 52:2.12, UB 52:3.4, UB 55:4.11, UB 55:6.3, UB 65:3.6 , UB 70:8.15, UB 71:3.8, UB 82:6.5. (The figure in parentheses is the document number.) I’m sure others have escaped me.
What do you think of this insistence that we eliminate the inferiors? What do you think this means in practice? Why are we surprised by this attitude of the revelators? Can something like this be disclosed without further preparation? Why are we so sensitive to eugenic approaches? Is Eugenics Morally Acceptable? Is there any form of eugenics that is more morally acceptable than others?
¶ Olga
Dear friends: Carmelo has brought up a subject that was precisely the one that cost me the most to assimilate, not intellectually but emotionally. I suppose it was because of that “misunderstood charity” that the Catholic Church instilled in us, according to which we had to consider the weakest worthy of multiplying to the same degree as the strong. Nietzsche already expressed himself very harshly and very clearly, criticizing the desire of Christianity to equalize humanity from below. I was also very shocked by the way the revelators talked about the human races; they see us from the outside and therefore can judge the problem with much more objectivity and coldness than we can. After all, we are human, we belong to a race, and it is hard for us to admit that in general the physical quality of the mortals on our planet leaves much to be desired. Although we only have to take a look around us (and at ourselves) to realize it.
In The Urantia Book we are told that, although we have equal opportunities in the spiritual realm, we are not biologically equal. And since biology conditions the type of mind we can have, inequality also affects the mind. Personally, after thinking about it a lot, I consider that the insistence of the revelators in reducing the number of inferiors seems to me not only justified, but that it is essential for the spiritual improvement of humanity. They tell us that we have a burden of weak beings and the mentally ill that will prevent us from taking off if we do not reduce their proportion over the generations. Just these days we are studying in the group the expansion of the Andite race, and when he spoke of the decline of the peoples the cause was always the mixture with inferior surrounding peoples. From what I deduce from the book, when higher lineages mix with lower lineages, there is an ephemeral elevation of the lower lineage, which is not propagated in future generations.
Well, all of this can be accepted in theory and it seems very nice to us, but it is a matter of putting it into practice at some point. Of course, it is not a question of gassing entire towns or killing anyone as “inferior”. The key is to restrict the reproduction of those who physically or mentally have a disease that may prevent them from fully developing as people. But above all there has to be an awareness of society about the existence of this problem, and that does not occur in our society. Not only is there no awareness of the problem, but it is also politically incorrect to even raise it. So off to a bad start.
Let’s assume that yes, that there was from all levels of society the conviction that something had to be done about it so that the humans of future generations are stronger physically and mentally. Today, many hereditary diseases have already been detected whose spread to children can be prevented by techniques that select healthy embryos. We have seen many cases in the press. That would be a way of “cleaning” defective genes. But of course, people would have to do some kind of analysis of their genome to detect if they are carriers of hereditary diseases before starting to procreate. And that’s where we get into thorny issues today. Could people be “forced” to take such tests? Because it is assumed that, if it is discovered that you are a carrier of a serious disease, you would automatically be destined to have children by artificial procedures, since Mother Nature could cause your children to suffer from that disease. Now the case of a couple who had had two children with inability to assimilate glucose comes to mind. They had to give them insulin every two hours for 24 hours (including nights) so they wouldn’t go into a diabetic coma. The mother had suffered a heart attack because her heart had not been able to withstand the lack of sleep. Surely that woman, if she had been able to choose, would not have wanted to have children whose quality of life was greatly deteriorated because of the disease. But on the other hand there are also people who have the children that God gives them, and who do not care if they come with hereditary defects or not. On the other hand, it would be necessary to have a clear and well-defined criterion on where to “draw the line” between acceptable and unacceptable hereditary diseases. Myopia is not the same as congenital heart deformation, for example.
That for what it does to hereditary diseases. But we would also have to resolve the procreation of the weak, the faint-hearted, the parasites of society, those who expect the rest of us to give it all to them. It would be necessary to avoid promoting the subsidy culture, that there are people who can live off the story without contributing anything to society. It is good that aid is provided, because anyone can have a bad run, but what should be avoided by all means is that this aid is the modus vivendi of some. In any case, I am aware that it is very difficult to carry out these controls. Of course, this would have to be accompanied by rigorous birth control of the “subsidized.”
This theme, that of the “purification” of the inferior lineages, is one of those that was surely reflected in the book for a future humanity to apply, because today I see it as very difficult to even reach the previous phase of awareness of the problem. But I suppose that since they didn’t leave any detail to chance and there is always a purpose behind every sentence in the book, they must expect us to at least be able to assimilate the need for eugenics both intellectually and emotionally. The theme is certainly vital for our world to reach the stage of light and life. And they have made it very clear to us that, since the improvement plans of the Prince and the Material Sons failed, it is up to us to straighten with human means what grew crooked from almost the beginning.
¶ Carmelo
I am also having trouble assimilating the subject, or rather, accepting it. But Olga’s explanations, quite logical and interesting, are helping me. In particular, the explanation of our Christian upbringing and conditioning, and the fact that the revelators see us “from the outside” probably as we might see and analyze a herd of gorillas. We would not have “race bias.”
We agree that we should not start gassing anyone, but it is also very clear that “biology” conditions the mind and therefore we must improve it if we want to progress mentally and spiritually.
It is a difficult and delicate subject. Let us hope that the analysis of the genome and the technology that arises from it will serve this purpose, despite how contrary some are to such advances. Let us also hope that little by little this social “super-sensitization” will soften and change. I believe that both are the ways for biological improvement to be viable.
However, today, I also find it difficult, especially because who will judge what should or should not be done? Or who will decide to whom to apply it? With how flawed our judicial systems are still and how far away politicians are from being the best, most loyal citizens willing to serve (and not serve themselves), to entrust them with such decisions!
The developers already tell us in paragraph UB 51:4.8.
¶ Santiago
Little more to add, other than that it stumped me when I first faced it. Later, you notice that when he talks about “cleaning” he is not referring to eliminating races, because although there are races that are more capable than others from a biological point of view, he always speaks of “purifying” harmful elements within the same races. That is, the mixture of races is desirable (that’s why they appear); what has to be done before mixing is to “raise” each of them as much as possible separately (that is, there are desirable and undesirable colors of all colors).
The problem we have is that this is done only by natural selection during the first epochs of mortals, when from the ethical point of view of the people of that epoch it is morally acceptable, they even consider it an achievement.
The problem is facing it now, that our ethics and morals would not allow certain things.
In addition, we have to combine it with, on the one hand, having “tools” to measure which “lines or lineages of each race are superior and in what, and to do it in an objective way. And also not prevent individuals from having the much-desired experience of parenthood. That is to say, ”a brown" in all rules.
¶ Eduardo
After reading your opinions, the selected quotes and something else from the UB, I have come to the conclusion that we can leave this subject to air it 3,000 or 4,000 years later. Let time go by and draw a thick veil on this issue, because as Olga rightly says, it would not be politically correct to establish comments at this point in which human evolution is located. It would be something like giving pearls to pigs. But that doesn’t stop me from giving you my opinion. I am going to do it trying to answer the questions that Carmelo has formulated.
What do you think of this insistence that we eliminate the inferiors?
I do not interpret that they insist, rather I understand that they call our attention a bit in our behavior, because despite scientific advances, certain social liberties are dragging us to allow more and more legalization of the behaviors of deformed, inferior or inferior “strains”. deviated, thus establishing patterns of behavior that are increasingly difficult to make disappear. Come on, instead of going a little forward, in some cases we go backwards.
What do you think this means in practice?
Guess what, Carmelo? I do not understand the question.
Why are we surprised by this attitude of the revelators?
I have to tell you that when I passed my eyes over all those paragraphs for the first time, I personally was not surprised by what I read. I believe that it reaffirmed certain ideas that I had. I have always considered that to be true children of God and represent him as such, all human beings should be good, in all aspects. If this world is made up of good guys and bad guys and, as Olga says, it’s enough to take a look around us, including us, and we don’t achieve the primary objective due to ignorance of reality, either we mix quickly or the bad guys will be more and more and the whole project will go to waste.
Can something like this be disclosed without further preparation?
Neither today nor ever should we eliminate anyone. But it is true that, through international organizations, it could be possible to give specific instructions or disseminate in an accurate and correct way manuals of instructive conduct endorsed by wise and educated people in the perceptive promotion of the growing and evolutionary potentials, found in the experience of an exemplary life in ethics, morality and religiosity. Come on, people who could well be an example of life, that there are “there are” within the different social strata. But it is also true that this is currently almost impossible. I believe that time will still have to pass before many human beings read the pages of the UB and admit that the mixture of races is the best thing that can happen to humanity.
Why are we so sensitive to eugenic approaches?
I think the same as the developers. Because of social and cultural prejudices. Because of the extreme sentimentality and because Hitler scared humanity a lot. No community has prospered to any great extent by allowing laziness and acquiescing in ignorance. We must become wise and intelligent in order to overcome the mental scruples that impede evolutionary growth.
Is eugenics morally acceptable?
In current minds, no. I dare to think that current morality is, in most cases, very primitive and in the rest highly conditioned by the slogans issued by the different religious institutions.
Is there any form of eugenics that is more morally acceptable than others?
This question has many answers on the Wikipedia page (eugenics), very interesting indeed. I invite you to visit it: http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenesia
¶ Carmelo
The Wikipedia page that Eduardo recommends is very interesting.
The bad press on eugenics undoubtedly comes from the abuses of the Nazis. Today everyone, and in particular the scientific world, “takes it with cigarette papers” when talking about it, but with the new genetic techniques there will be no choice but to “take the bull by the horns” and regulate its use. Hence the interest of the subject for us readers. I tremble just to think of it being left in the hands of the politicians we currently have. It is useless to oppose the advance of science, as the extreme right (Bush and company) and the most conservative religions (Catholics and other relatives) do; the question is not to stop its progress, but how to make it a science with a conscience (at the service of the people). I insist that here readers will have something to say, not as an organization of readers, which is not its function, but as individuals with a certain way of thinking and being, and with a certain point of view on society and its evolution, all of which is the result of having read the UB and of knowing that the Father has given us this world so that we may bring it to light and life. I invite you to reflect on it and to prepare yourselves to act (each one in their field and within their possibilities).
Eduardo didn’t quite understand one of my questions. I was referring to what the elimination of inferiors means in practice (in action). On the Wiki page I found some answers to this question.
¶ Olga
Dear friends: studying the History of Science, more specifically the part in which it deals with Darwinism and the sociological doctrines that arose from the idea of natural selection, I have been able to verify that the concept of “misunderstood” eugenics (and that it makes that just mentioning it is politically incorrect) goes back a little further than the heyday of Nazism. Undoubtedly, Nazism borrowed ideas from earlier thinkers (whether they were German or not).
I attach here a few paragraphs from the chapter “Triumphant Darwinism” of the “History of Environmental Sciences” by P.J. Bowler, where he talks about just this:
In the 17th century, Protestant Christianity appropriated the image of a world machine built by God for the benefit of humanity in order to justify the claim that Europeans had the right to exploit nature’s resources on a global scale. By the end of the 19th century, this claim was increasingly founded on the idea that the white race was the pinnacle of evolutionary progress, and it was nature, not God, who rewarded the very virtues of industry and initiative.
_Of particular interest to social thinkers was the alleged threat that the proliferation of the least fit members of the human species represented against the white race. In the early 20th century, pro-eugenics movements flourished, advocating that governments should intervene to limit the reproduction of the feeble-minded and degenerate types who flourished in the slums. Founded by Darwin’s cousin Francis Galton, the pro-eugenics movement was based on the assumption that an individual’s character is determined entirely by heredity: no amount of education or better social services will help those born with limited intelligence. After 1900 the new science of Mendelian genetics began to be thought of as providing a firm foundation for such beliefs. The claim that heredity imposes limitations on individual behavior is the cornerstone on which a host of theories have been built, purporting to show how a particular biological imperative has been imposed on us by “nature.”
In the United States, eugenics was linked to the fear of degeneration that could be produced by the influx of immigrants belonging to inferior racial groups. Here the theory of evolution was more directly involved, as a multitude of biologists and physical anthropologists tried to consolidate the notion of a hierarchy of racial types established in the 19th century. Evolution was no longer seen as climbing a single ladder, but as a process in which many parallel lines progressed to different levels of the same hierarchical ladder. Henry Fairfield Osborn credited the breeds with great antiquity, so vast that for all intents and purposes they were distinct species. Each of them had its own unique character, and of course the white race, on the scale of development, had risen higher than any other. Thus the theory of evolution was exploited as a means of condemning the “inferior” races to their low status. One did not need to be a geneticist to believe that an individual’s character is firmly determined by his racial heritage. As an old-school paleontologist, Osborn had nothing to do with the upstart science of genetics, yet his full authority was behind the eugenics movement and its calls for immigration restriction.
Regarding this topic, I saw an article in Urantology (http://www.urantology.org) that I found interesting and that I translated to put it in the “Works” section of our website. You can read the article at this link: http://www.urantia.es/sites/default/files/Eugenesiaetica.pdf. The author is more in favor of social measures than genetic measures to improve the human species
¶ Carmelo
Excellent article!
I admit that reading UB the topic of eugenics worried me. And that’s why the article says: “Hitler gave eugenics a bad name and set its cause back at least 60 years.” I think that’s what happened to me and happens to a lot of people. But the author has very clear ideas, is extremely practical and proposes simple and easy to accept measures.
I think there are things that could already be in the political programs of the parties. For example, instead of proposing negative measures (restricting the rights of adults), consider them positive (defining and protecting new rights for children, even if they actually mean restricting the rights of adults). I thought it was great, easy for everyone to accept and relatively easy to put into practice; and extremely effective from the eugenic point of view.
And what about that other one of a “father/mother card” with a training course and exams as with the driver’s license. It could even be “by points” (¡¡) now that the subject is fashionable. Isn’t it easy to put into practice? Doesn’t the Catholic Church require pre-marriage courses?
It’s a pity that he doesn’t have influence with any politician to “blow him in the ear” to put him in his party’s program. We should try to get these ideas across to them. Let’s see if I can think of something about how to do it.
Another detail: the author illustrates his ideas with very pertinent quotes from the book that shed a lot of light on their meaning; at least it has happened to me. Definitely, the article has given me a different, clear and reassuring point of view regarding this very disturbing topic for me, at least until now.
If you haven’t read the article yet, please do. It is very worth it.
¶ Olga
It is true, when I read the article I had the same impression as you. I think it addresses the issue of eugenics in a very elegant way but at the same time proposes measures that anyone would find common sense, and therefore would be very effective; it is about doing eugenics without the ordinary citizen relating it to the “perverse eugenics” that was done in other times. And of course the key point is to approach the issue by focusing on the rights of children to have a happy childhood and with their needs covered.
I must say that before reading the article, I was in favor of carrying out more coercive measures (such as the issue of preventing reproduction due to being a carrier of hereditary diseases), but I think that what the author proposes would also be very effective and would not seem to be an attack against the freedom of the individual to experience parenthood.
¶ Andrés
Dear friends: from my point of view and in view of the article, which I have read but with which I do not entirely agree, my assessment is more in line with human values than with intellectual ones.
I agree with the difficulties that you show on the first page, such as the “grossly incapable, deficient, degenerate and antisocial”, but today we do not have enough elements to fairly and honestly determine these deficiencies and I fear that many generations will pass. , to achieve such ends.
I think there are many good-hearted people who haven’t gone to college, how would we classify them! But there are also people with a lot of studies and they are not at all human or sociable, that is to say, children of…? How would we classify these? A person can have intelligence and not have studies.
In this article at no time does one speak of the noble of heart but rather of culture and knowledge to determine or value people. For this reason I do not agree very much with part of the writing, especially where the value of teaching and “titulitis” is emphasized a lot and little is said about the human values that we must acquire first. Of course this is my opinion.
¶ Santiago
From my point of view, it is one of the best practical “applications” of the philosophy that is extracted from the UB, to a specific time: ours.
I think it’s great, and maybe it’s a good way to address the thorny issue. But I have some reservations: perhaps I have been hasty in reading, but from the outset I get the impression that one of the selection criteria is economic, arguing that the economic situation of people denote a certain ability to adapt (they are suitable). , or allow the child to “grow up in a favorable environment”, and I agree that if the family unit is economically stable, it will favor what interests us, but that is where I think the difference has to come, that is, that the economic situation be something to help resolve this couple. Because we all know that money and social position are not exactly well distributed, and therefore “arriving at university”, does not exactly separate the fit from the unfit. I would not put the economic issue, and therefore the socio-cultural level of the parents, who have undoubtedly depended on socio-cultural situations that they have not had the opportunity to manage, as an elective criterion to “clean lineages”; I think that even if it were slower, it would be more accurate, preventing or restricting the reproduction of anyone who has been in jail more than twice, for example, or those who have been prey to vices that are dangerous to their health, etc. A type of measure that temporarily, as long as these individuals do not change, prevents them from “proliferating”, but of course the sociocultural situation (and by this I mean economic income, educational level, etc.), with great reserve.
¶ References
- Light and Life Magazine (all old issues): https://aue.urantia-association.org/numeros-antiguos-del-lyv/
| Luz y Vida — No. 36 — Presentation | Luz y Vida — No. 36 — March 2014 — Index | Death according to The Urantia Book |