Return to the NeoEugenics' Home Page

THE FOLLOWING IS AN INTERVIEW THAT WAS PUBLISHED IN RESISTANCE MAGAZINE, SUMMER 2005.

How did you first become interested in eugenics?

I have always been interested in human behavior, and especially human rationality: are we really different from other animals and how? As any young radically minded college kid thirty-five years ago, I loved to debate issues and I remember that I never felt comfortable with either conservatives or liberals, not to mention the left. Like most however, I left the academic world for the work-a-day world, and finding other people interested in subjects like race and eugenics was difficult.

About ten years ago, as I was spending more time on the Internet, I read the now infamous book The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life by the late Richard J. Herrnstein and Charles Murray. The Left was so hysterical over what I thought was an obvious observation in the book, that intelligence is primarily genetic or heritable and that the races differed in average intelligence, that I began to debate the issue on the Internet. But I was ill-equipped to defend my position, so I began to study mostly academics books that dealt with race, genetics, eugenics, and human behavior in general. From what I read, it seemed that eugenics could be an answer to the race problem, at least for Whites. At some point then, I decided to open up my web site around the theme of eugenics, as well as exploring related issues important to White nationalists.

What is your viewpoint of eugenics and the modern world?  How do you define eugenics? 

For clarity, I will mention the three main phases of eugenics. Humans, for at least 50,000 years and probably much longer, have practiced a form of eugenics, as all animals do. In breeding, usually the female selects a male of the highest quality she can attract. In addition, humans have in the past, and some tribes still do today, kill children that are not seen to be viable or under circumstances that are not conducive to having a child. Usually, the child was killed immediately after birth before the mother became attached to it.

The first modern eugenics movement was about as modern as medicine was 150 years ago, and it started about the same time in stutters and spurts. I won't go into much detail as so much has been written about the early eugenics' movement, much of it available at my web site. But just like earlier medicine, it was primitive and based more on a value system in the West that saw a world dominated by vice and despair. Prostitution, illiteracy, alcoholism, blindness, extreme poverty, etc. were all to be cured by improving the human blood line. It was simplistic, and it did not have the tools of genetics to guide it. But primarily, it was displaced by radical environmentalism (Marxism), especially after the Second World War when the victors were allowed to write the history. Eugenics was linked to National Socialism and declared to be a universal evil.

In the fifties however, after the genetic code was discovered, eugenics has been on a long march back to life. It goes by other names like genetic engineering, stem cell research, prevention of birth defects, etc. However, these are all eugenic applications, and they are accelerating exponentially as DNA for not only humans, but for all kinds of animals are decoded. For example, the genetic code for breeds of dogs was just published, and breeds of dogs look very much like human races.

My own definition of applied eugenics is any action taken, whether due to natural innate goals or by design, that improves the quality of genes as determined by the agent. That is, different people may select for different genes such as beauty, intelligence, or athletic ability. That is the same as breeding dogs for different purposes.

Do you write?  If so, what are some of your works?

All of my written articles are posted at my web site, and I try to post new material every month. I have two books that are free for downloading that have to do with race and eugenics: Shattering the Myth of Racism (two volumes). I have also published in The Mankind Quarterly an article entitled "Reproductive Perspectives: A Review of Some Recent Books on the Ethics of Manipulating Human Genes." It is also available at my web site. It is a good introduction to eugenics and the Marxist opposition.

Most of my other articles are reviews of academic books that are either from the Left or provide empirical data on the application of eugenics and racialism. My goal has always been to use a scientific approach in understanding human nature so that any future political and/or communal systems implemented work for the benefit Whites.

Is it difficult for you to separate fact and fantasy when you write about eugenics? 

There are two components to eugenics. One is the scientific, and it deals with genetic engineering and provides the tools for genetic selection. This "fact" is the easy part—it is pursued because it is pure science, there is money to be made, and people want to provide the very best genes for their children. The other component is the racialist factor or even religion if you will. For me at least, it is not fantasy nor is it utopian. It is simply the desire to see one's own race improving itself genetically to out-compete other races. For me, it is not enough for one's children to do well, for without the race one belongs to the children are left alone and isolated. My genes, my race's genes, are to me one and the same. We either collectively work to preserve those genes or they will be lost—wiped out by other competing races who wish us harm. That is a basic premise of evolution. Individuals, races, and species all compete for survival. The White race is under attack globally, and for me eugenics is one way to preserve—and improve—a race that is worth keeping in tact.

What kinds of people/ideas do you support through your website www.neoeugenics.com?

The people I target of course are those interested in eugenics, and the political struggles that it entails. The people are fairly diverse, including White racialists from India, Turkey, Brazil, and many other countries where there is an elite that is still White. They, more than many in the West, understand racial differences quite well.

My ideas are rather diverse, but I focus both on political struggle and what we can learn about human nature to make Whites more aware of the threats against them. We are labeled universally as colonialists, White supremacists, capitalists, and a race that universally has White privilege because we are inherently evil and must be destroyed so that the oppressed everywhere can be free. So a lot of my writings have to do with the counter arguments from a neo-Darwinist perspective and related scientific investigations that tease apart the ideological contradictions in the antiracist program of White vilification. A good way to get a glimpse of this war against the West is to just do a Google search on "White privilege" and scan the results.

Back when eugenics was an accepted science and theory, what kinds of things did International Congresses on Eugenics do?

Very much the same programs as current political movements undertake—people publish reports, scientific papers, proposals on what should be done, etc. There was a large database program that tried to keep track of family lineages, to try and understand eugenics. There also were sterilization laws passed, information on eugenics in textbooks, etc. But it had little real impact overall because it was a top down program, and we have seen how ineffective these programs are like the "War on Drugs" or the "No Child Left Behind" program now floundering in the educational system.

Even in Nazi Germany, a late comer to the eugenics movement, it was not very effective or even practiced. Many have equated the Holocaust with eugenics, but quite the opposite is true. The Nazis saw the Jews as very effective competitors, not inferior, and they were eliminated as enemies. Even the feeble attempt at euthanasia against defective Germans was meant to free up hospital beds for the new influx of wounded German soldiers.

Who do you see as the founding fathers of the study of eugenics? 

Surprisingly, aside from Sir Francis Galton, I would have to list the real heroes as those who undertook to turn back the Marxist radical environmentalism that followed the earlier eugenics' movement. If you want an overview of the earlier advocates, see my review of War Against the Weak: Eugenics and America's Campaign to Create a Master Race by Edwin Black, 2003. Black severely distorts the history of eugenics, but his book does show how Marxists continue to distort eugenics, but also how it was made up of many different perspectives and objectives.

When Francis Crick and James Watson, in 1953, announced "we had found the secret of life," the eugenics program was reborn before the old one had even died. Over the next fifty years, such giants as William Donald Hamilton and Robert Trivers as evolutionary theorists would explain how humans could reproduce for selection of kin and also act as selfless altruists—they would explain morality in terms of selection. Richard Dawkins would explain how humans are vehicles for our "selfish genes," and E. O. Wilson would explain how ants and humans alike followed genetic programs to fulfill the gene's goals. Arthur R. Jensen would show us that intelligence is the most important human trait, and one that is almost entirely genetic while William Shockley would warn us about breeding ourselves into stupidity.

More recently, Kevin MacDonald would publish three volumes on the group evolutionary strategies between Jews and gentiles, and show us how racial groups compete, while J. Philippe Rushton would explain how the races differ on numerous behavioral traits in Race, Evolution, and Behavior, 1995. In 1996 Richard Lynn would publish Dysgenics, followed in 2001 with Eugenics, A Reassessment and in 2002 publish along with Tatu Vanhanen: IQ and the Wealth of Nations.

Eugenics today is not the top down hierarchical movement of the past, where ideologues, philanthropists, and politicians drive the program. It is now a bottom up program where thousands of researchers in evolutionary behavior, behavior genetics, genetic engineering, computer sciences, ethology, cognitive neuroscience, and self-organizing systems that emerge from simple programs to complex societies, are all telling the story of eugenics, even though many of the researchers miss the connection between human behavior and directed evolutionary change. Just as humans tend to separate themselves naturally into communities based on race and social status, humans are equally going about the business of looking after their children, kin and race. We see that occurring in Iraq, where suicide bombers are sacrificing themselves for what they see as the higher good of their people—they are doing the tasks asked them by their genes and a dose of religious indoctrination.

For these reasons, eugenics today will probably be a rather leaderless movement, while it plays itself out in competition between individuals and races, at all levels and in a myriad of ways. It is also why the movement is less in need of leaders and more in need of resources to allow it to self-organize itself into racial breeding groups. Fundamentally then, eugenics for Whites is a matter of deprogramming ourselves from the false promises of socialism, Marxism, diversity and egalitarian dogmas. These moralizing gods have strangled our race into capitulating to the demands of other races for their benefit.

What do you believe was the contribution of Sir Francis Galton (1822-1911) to the study of eugenics?

As the first psychologist to label human behavior as coming from our heredity, his brilliance preceded our genetic understanding by 100 years. Galton would not be vindicated until we had passed through our "naïve environmentalism" phase, ushered in by Marxism and ideological changes brought about by World War Two. But his influence and his insights into forming numerous tests to determine heritability still stand. Arthur R. Jensen, clearly the most profound researcher in psychometrics today, and the leading theoretician showing that intelligence must be genetic, cites Francis Galton as one of three psychologists' written works that he reads again and again to direct new research programs.

Galton was an eclectic eccentric, jumping from one study to another without the benefit of peer reviews or others to build upon, and yet he saw what others could not all around him—a person was the product of their breeding, not their environments (for the most part). That was an astounding leap in knowledge and observation before we understood any of the scientific principles that underpin eugenics today.

Would you agree with Galton who believed that eugenics is a science, sentiment, and policy?

Very much so. First, it is science in that we know now how organisms are determined by their genes, humans are not exempt. Policy is society's way of altering the local ecology in such a way that people's breeding patterns are altered, as we can clearly see in the higher breeding rates of the underclass. Policy such as welfare and affirmative action, international aid to third world countries, and open borders that allow underdeveloped countries to export their human misfits, are what Galton warned us about.

Finally, sentiment is all important in that there seems to be a natural balance—what scientists call an evolutionary stable strategy—where there are people who lean towards nurturing the weak versus those who are tough minded. Between these extremes, society indoctrinates people to shift their perspectives in one direction or the other—from helping the downtrodden to letting them fend for themselves. The pendulum has shifted back and forth for centuries. Some in the eugenics' movement, including myself, have no problem with labeling our sentiment a religion, one based on science but also accepting that people are to be held accountable for their actions, and breeding more misfits should stand squarely on the shoulders of the breeders, not on the general public. So we definitely have a problem with "sentiment," a holdover from our evolutionary tribal past, where we now provide services to not only to our own tribal members in need, but to anyone who asks for help, whether they deserve it or not.

I’ve read that Galton viewed wealth and urbanism as destructive forces upon a race.  Although I would tend to agree, I think that if White people are looking for their own living space, wealth may be necessary to establish that.  Wouldn’t you agree?

Galton was talking of course again about urbanism, or as we would call it today cosmopolitanism, or the tendency towards egalitarianism. Wealth in itself is not a problem; it is when excess wealth is used to help the underclass out-breed the wealthier classes that problems arise. Of course, there is no direct correlation between wealth and intelligence, but they are correlated enough for a dysgenic effect to take hold when the wealthy stop breeding while the underclass undertakes breeding as a way of life, as long as the larger society provides for their basic needs. It is really the tragedy of the commons problem. Socialist governments collect money from the producers, and then redistribute it to those who lobby for it. The needy always have advocates that plead on their behalf, as well as the general public preferring not to be confronted with beggars, thieves, and hungry children.

That is one reason that I believe that racialists should not run away to isolated rural compounds, but rather stay in urban environments where wealth is easier to accumulate. Wealth is what will give us the means to set up our own schools, communities, and alternative ways of living, as well as providing for more children. I think this can be done right in the midst or our enemies with secure communities working together. Besides, there is nothing like a constant reminder of why we want to separate ourselves from other races to help us bind together into our own enclaves. Niche building is easier when there are resources and motivation.

What comes to mind when I say “William Shockley”?  From what I have read, Shockley (1910-1989) concerned himself with the population quality problem, rather than the quantity problem.  Are these two distinct issues in your view? 

Aside from resurrecting the eugenics movement to some degree, he helped to focus society's attention on the fertility of those with low IQs. He also did this during the height of the civil rights movement, so he was quite a thorn to the egalitarians as he was also very outspoken on intelligence and race. Since Shockley and Jensen, the eugenics movement has been primarily focused on raising intelligence, whereas before that time eugenics attempted to solve too many problems. Intelligence, it was shown, made the difference for many of our social problems. An intelligent alcoholic is far better off and better able to control the problem than an alcoholic of low intelligence. So he focused the movement on trying to raise intelligence, and not other behavioral conditions that we may not want to part with—such as individualism or ethnocentrism—that may turn out to be very necessary in a changing world. Intelligence however is one trait that everyone wants. Has anyone ever wished for a stupid child rather than an intelligent one? Yet, the Left continues to deny its importance.

Shockley was just one of those rare gems that comes along every once in a while and challenges the status quo, with intelligence and determination. Many others have contributed to the research, but he preached the necessary message. He was shouted down, but he kept eugenics alive by his efforts. No one else stood up and stated the obvious like he did. And his recommendations for sterilizing those with low intelligence by offering them monetary incentives is still one the best ways of implementing eugenics while not being coercive.

As to the quality versus quantity problem, they are definitely distinct issues.  If we make sure that the average White intelligence is increasing over time, but there are very few Whites left, it is all rather pointless. On the other hand, to just increase the size of the White race, without making sure that we are more creative, intelligent and productive than other races is likewise not very promising for a our future generations.

I think separating them as issues is important, and fighting for each independently is necessary because we do not know what lies ahead. We can try to stop open immigration to preserve our environments as we work to remake our political system into one that is conducive to eugenics. But if that fails, we may have to rely on a cohesive racial community to keep our race alive. Whichever fight one focuses on, they are both important.

As men who studied human intelligence – a phenomenon very concrete to some, and so very abstract to others – what was it about Arthur Jensen and J. Philippe Rushton that made them be despised as they were – and still are?

Yes, both men are often mentioned by the Left, but they are very different types of people. Jensen has been around for much longer, and has been attacked relentlessly for over 35 years, and yet he has never changed his research agenda or his politics in the face of the hatred and physical abuse he has had to endure. In fact, Jensen just plain does not have any politics, he just does research and publishes the results. This probably bothers the Left more than anything else, because he has shown for 35 years that Blacks are less intelligence than Whites, the gap is substantial (about 15 IQ points), and it is primarily genetic.

The whole science of psychometrics, or testing for mental ability and behavioral traits, has called this observation Jensenism, and it basically stands alone, unchallenged. All the Left can do is attack Jensenism and Jensen himself, because they have been unable to provide any research that shows that the gap is because of environmental causes.

Rushton on the other hand is political, and unabashed about stating his position and telling the world. In Canada, where he is a professor at the University of Western Ontario, they tried to go after him in the courts under hate crime laws for his book Race, Evolution, and Behavior. He then turned around and published an abridged edition and sent it free to other professors. So unlike Jensen, he is political as well as a brilliant researcher. Political or not however, if anyone steps out of line when it comes to discussing the genetic difference in the average intelligence of different races, they will be attacked. By the way, any one who states that Jews are more intelligent than Whites will be attacked as a racist just as surely as those who point out that Whites are more intelligent than Blacks. Jews, primarily Ashkenazi Jews, are VERY touchy about this issue.

Looking at the current social policies of the USA, what do you see as our nation’s trajectory twenty or forty years from now?

A lot of people make predictions on trending, but of course that requires ignoring any future changes—such as the trend that Whites will be a minority in America in fifty years. I prefer to look at trends and combine them with human nature, advancements in science, and the rest is just chance.

With regards to eugenics, the science no doubt will progress in about a decade to the point where we can identify the 10 or 20 genes that are responsible for intelligence. At that point, any couple with a few thousands dollars can have a dozen or so eggs harvested, fertilized, and tested for the intelligence genes, along with tests for any genetic diseases, and implant the most intelligent and disease free fertilized egg of the lot. This will advance selective breeding by ten fold or more. The really beautiful thing however is it will happen within a free market economy. Eugenics, without any help from advocates, will be advanced by the desire of parents for intelligent children and for a marketplace to deliver the services for a fee. Countries will try to stop it, but it will win out in the end as labs will just be set up off-shore and couples on vacation just happen to avail themselves of genetic engineering services while relaxing at the beach.

On the political side, it will be the end of race deniers and radical environmentalism. People will no longer be willing to pour billions of dollars into trying to wipe out racism so that little Black kids can finally learn. The true reason, genes, will be finally conclusive, and people will stop believing the naïve environmentalist's position. Even President Bush's No Child Left Behind is a remnant of this cultural ignorance of the impact of genes. So denying the genetic basis of intelligence is embraced by both the Left and conservatives alike. They need it to control the fractious results of racial diversity. No where in the world are diverse races, with significant differences of innate intelligence, living in peace without government coercion to keep it that way. In the United States, all racial problems are blamed on White privilege—end of discussion.

However, we may have an ally in radical Islam. As the war on terrorism drags on, it will also be glaringly evident to Western culture that we are different from Semitic tribalism and fanaticism. These differences are also genetic, and we may see some realignment in existing factions. If Islam wants us out of the Middle East—fine—as long as we can remove Semites from the West. So radical Islam may be just what the radical right needs to make the case that other races are indeed dangerous and should be considered so until proven otherwise. It may be the reality check that has been needed for a very long time: humans are naturally tribal and will take advantage of another's weakness.

Although we both know that eugenics is highly desirable in this increasingly dysgenic country (and world), do you see it as feasible in contemporary America?  Is it even plausible in modern times? 

As I stated above, once the political forces start moving to the empirical right, as I think they have been, eugenics will evolve on its own much faster than we can anticipate by the current mood and media messages we are surrounded by. A few months ago one of the leading eugenics advocates called for a meeting to discuss eugenics among those involved in the movement. There was no response however, and I think I know why. Eugenics is not the stand-alone program it was 100 years ago. Then, it was a program to "save us from decadency." Today, every eugenicist I know of (except for one) is tied to what I can only describe as the empirical racialist right for lack of a better term. We are not one group but we are inserted within many other groups.

Eugenics is not only feasible, it is in fact here, but it is denied. When welfare reform placed a five year limit on benefits, the welfare state was rolled back; When the No Child Left Behind program collects tests scores, we will be able to show how it is all in the genes; As we incarcerate more criminals we keep them from breeding; People are now going to labs to screen their fetuses for genetic diseases. All of these changes are eugenics without official imprimatur—but they eugenics none the less.

If you think it is, do you agree with Galton when he said that “It is above all things needful for the successful program of eugenics that its advocates should move discreetly and claim no more efficacy on its behalf than the future will confirm; otherwise a reaction will be invited” (1909)?

The early advocates of eugenics should have taken note of his warning. They claimed too much, and when it didn't materialize, and when the Marxists linked eugenics to the Nazis, eugenics was pushed aside. Now that we have another chance at making a real difference, we should not overstate our case or promise a utopia. There is no way to prove that a world filled with intelligent people will be a better world than one filled with stupid people. But all of the research seems to indicate that a highly intelligent nation could move towards direct democracy and more freedom.

Aside from a long term vision, it is possible and preferable that any eugenics community that is based on racial separatism, shroud themselves in discretion as Galton advised, and establish themselves within a religious community. I am no legal expert on the separation of church and state, but a religious community seems like the best way to form a racial community without running into legal problems. Religious organizations have many tax and legal advantages, as well as being allowed to establish doctrine without state intervention. As long as the eugenic religious group does not provoke others, they should be able to go about practicing eugenics very effectively just as Galton advised. I am somewhat disappointed that we have not been able to establish any eugenic groups as yet based on Galton's advice, but many are trying to promote the idea and get one formed, somewhere, somehow.

How can eugenics play a role for those of us who are interested in ensuring the future of our race?  Without getting involved in biotechnology, what can we do aside from chose a mate who is of good racial stock and high intelligence?

My April, 2004 article entitled "Niche Construction," taken from recent research, is probably the best I have to offer for mechanisms to racial formation of solidarity groups. In short, we all have to find others like us, make sure they are sincere and not joiners for short term goals, and keep the movement going. There has to be a certain number of people in a location to start the process, some organization, and IT HAS TO BE REWARDING. The reason we have so many race traitors is because humans want to be liked and they will buy into the latest social norms to be safe and feel like they are doing the right thing. And of course, Whites fall into this indoctrinability easier than other races because of our tendency towards universal moralism and censoring our own for not abiding by the rules—like pandering to minorities every time they demand action from us in their favor. Whites evolved in an ecological niche that was free of tribalism but a hard life in terms of climate. So we are easy prey for more tribalist races.

The Internet is a great place to talk over ideas and contact people, but it is a difficult forum for sustaining a growing movement. However, a group of like-minded people, working together to build a life of racial separation, a goal of not just a community but making money to sustain and expand the group and to provide for things like home schooling, is all it really takes. But the most important part is an ability to eject disruptive members who do not put in the necessary effort to understand the complexities of human nature, or have egos that need to be fed by group members. It seems that charismatic leaders are often necessary but also dangerous. Don't become a cult, become a community that enjoys the process as well as the goal.

There are many Whites who want to separate themselves from other races, but they belong to communities where that attitude is shunned. And a final note, humans usually belong to many groups with a common interest. It is quite easy then to have a racial community but go to work in a multicultural environment. I am able to juggle this very effectively depending on what group I am among. When necessary I am a liberal, a humanist, a libertarian, a racialist, whatever. Then when I get the opportunity with certain people I try to get them to discuss issues that will break down their dogmatic ways of thinking—but gently so they don't dig in even more in being a self-hating White.

What do you see as the social and racial values of birth control? 

Birth control methods have been invented, they are now available everywhere, and they will be used. There are many eugenicists that preach having more children—but human nature as it is has been unhinged from procreation. The goals that drive humans evolved under conditions where birth control was not an option. As a result, nature has equipped us more with sexual desire that procreation desire. This is a problem that can't be solved by preaching alone.

A eugenics' community then must structure itself technologically and politically to overcome this ecological change. Birth control can be used to reduce the number of misfits a society has to tolerate—those who destroy more than they build. Resources can also be used either by the state or a racial community to produce more children. Perhaps, through the correct breeding program, we can give our offspring a greater desire to have children than humans have now. In the short term we must use incentives that people feel are fair and equitable. I will never accept the premise that it is the women's "duty" to have more children for the benefit of the race. Men have to do their part in providing the conditions where the burden of children is equally shared between men and women. When the rewards of having children are greater than the burden, we will have more children.

To some, this may seem like an obvious answer, but I’ll ask anyway…How do you view the relationship between health and eugenics?  I see this relationship as one in which an increase in health will lead to an increase in one’s chances for a eugenic mate, as well as a decrease in crime and ignorance. Would you agree?

Genes don't act alone, but work on a planned development from the fetus to old age, where genes interact with the environment in making us what we are. Health of course is important, keeping children safe, free of disease, etc. But in addition, we must be very aware of the developmental stages that children go through, when to guide them, when to prod them, but more importantly when to leave them alone to learn at their own pace. Recent studies are showing that pushing children too hard does little to improve their progress in school, sports, music, what have you. However, it can increase anxiety. It can also push children into areas that they are not innately talented for. Most children find their own niches, so we must understand their developmental projectiles, and assist, not deter what they are good at and where they want to go as they grow.
 
The old model, that children are empty vessels that we just pour knowledge and values into is being replaced with the model that they come into the world already equipped to learn language, social interaction, abstract reasoning, fairness, etc. An understanding of how the genes interact with the environment to mold the child is all important. It also has a great deal to do with how we keep our children attached to the value systems that are important, and this definitely has a great deal to do with how they behave and how it affects their health.

The problem with value systems however is that children can take on one set of values while in the home, and another set of values from their friends, from school, etc. These different sets of values will change expression as they enter the home or go out with their friends. We need to learn a lot more about how we can influence our children's values, which areas of their behavior will be primarily genetically determined, and what areas are more flexible. For example, a massive thirteen year study of adolescents funded by NIMH, supported by five universities, showed that sociability and autonomy could be influenced by the home environment (see my web site for a review of The Relationship Code: Deciphering Genetic and Social Influences on Adolescent Development). We can beat the Left at their own game of relying only on the environment, but focusing our resources where they can alter for the better our children's future, while understanding where genes dominate. Our social and health care system today is not as effective as it could be because genes and genetic differences are more often than not totally ignored.

What are some good references or sources for people who are interested in learning more about eugenics? 

Some of the books I cited above are good starters, and I have reviewed many of the books on eugenics, both pro and con, at my web site. Another good eugenics' site is Future Generations at http://www.eugenics.net. The Internet is a great source for all kinds of perspectives, but like abortion or civil rights it is extremely emotion laden. The science however is moving at an incredible pace, and almost daily in the news you will hear something pertaining to eugenics, without the word being used of course. In areas like cloning, human engineering, health care based on racial differences, new genes being discovered, better screening for genetic disease, stem cell research—these are all part of eugenics. So to learn about eugenics, keep an open mind, and look at the data that is all around us as well as buried in academic books and research.

If you are a dog lover and familiar with breeding, recent research has shown that breeds of dogs are exactly the same as human races. Almost all the genes are the same between breeds of dogs, but a few genes tweaked here and there by selection have allowed us to alter the temperament, looks, health, and intelligence of the different breeds. Dogs are a good model of what eugenics can do for those who love dogs. Humans and dogs coevolved together over the last 10,000 years, and recent research is showing that they have an astounding sense of our mental states, much more so than our closest relatives the chimpanzees. Gazing into your mutt's mind, he his gazing likewise back at yours. Wolves can't do that—we have bred our dogs to interact with us mentally just by being so closely bound with our pets for such a long period of time.

 

Matt Nuenke
February, 2005