Eugenics and Our Current Policies

Eugenics is one of the most catastrophic and alarming chapters of modern history—yet, many people know little or nothing about it. Recently, I had a brief conversation where I made a 100% implicit bias error, assuming the other person knew about the eugenics movement. That moment made me realize how important it is to shed light on this dark history. 

So, I want to take a moment to explain what eugenics is, why it is so dangerous, and how its legacy continues to shape modern political movements.

My Indoctrination

I can look back on my life and recognize that eugenics subtly influenced my early childhood—seemingly quite innocently. My parents were huge science fiction fans, and one of their favorite authors (whose works I have also read extensively) was Robert A. Heinlein (white/male).

I distinctly remember long conversations where my parents expressed pride in their family’s longevity, emphasizing that they had long-lived relatives with little to no history of cancer. They encouraged me to consider partnering with someone from a similarly long-lived family, as if longevity were something to be strategically selected for. This idea was so deeply embedded in our family dialogue and culture that it felt natural—yet, in retrospect, I can see how it subtly echoed eugenic thinking.

What’s particularly interesting is that these conversations coexisted with a strong emphasis on science, medicine, critical thinking and “rational” thought. Yet, without ever explicitly using the term "eugenics," the discussions reflected the same underlying principles—selective breeding for desirable traits, particularly longevity.

It is important for me to acknowledge my history and the indoctrination that, over time, created a deep disharmony between my lived experiences and the societal influences that shaped me. As someone with autism and ADHD, I have had to confront the ways in which my idealized naivety led me to believe that certain ideas were positive, when in reality, they were not.

I have had to navigate a gauntlet of learning and realization, recognizing that this indoctrination was something I needed to rewire, unlearn, and critically examine—particularly when it came to identifying my own implicit biases.

As someone with a neurodiverse brain, I’ve always been willing to speak openly about hypocrisies that others may avoid. That’s why it is so important for me to acknowledge—publicly—that I am not immune or exempt from the effects of deep-rooted programming from childhood.

At the same time, I recognize that my disability is a blessing. It allows me to have the uncomfortable conversations that are necessary to resist propaganda and challenge harmful ideologies. And whether my parents intended it or not, they ultimately gave me the tools to think critically, question indoctrination, and resist the very ideologies that threaten our democracy.

Science Fiction (Reading is "fun")

Some of Heinlein’s works that explore eugenic themes include Time Enough for Love and The Lazarus Project, Beyond This Horizon.  The character Lazarus Long often came up in our family discussions, reinforcing these ideas. As a young person reading these books, I didn’t initially recognize the eugenic undertones—but looking back, I can see how they shaped the conversations we were having.

Robert A. Heinlein’s Lazarus Long series (also known as the Future History series)  contains an undercurrent of eugenic themes, though often framed through libertarian and individualist perspectives rather than authoritarian control.

In Methuselah’s Children (1941), the central premise revolves around the Howard Families, a group of people who, through selective breeding, have extended their lifespans significantly. The Howard Foundation pays individuals with long-lived ancestors to marry and have children, thus encouraging the natural selection of longevity genes. This is an example of positive eugenics (encouraging the propagation of desirable traits) rather than the coercive eugenics seen in real-world movements.

Heinlein consistently portrays state-controlled and authoritarian societies as oppressive and dangerous, often contrasting them with Lazarus Long, a self-sufficient, free-spirited character who embodies personal freedom and individualism. While voluntary selective breeding is presented as a rational and beneficial choice, Heinlein strongly criticizes forced genetic control by governments or authoritarian institutions.

Lazarus Long himself is depicted as superior in intelligence, adaptability, and morality, frequently juxtaposed against "normal" individuals who are portrayed as less capable. This reflects Heinlein’s broader philosophy of individual exceptionalism—the idea that certain people, often genetically gifted or mentally superior, naturally rise above the masses.

Unlike historical eugenics, which relied on coercion and discrimination, Heinlein’s model is voluntary and incentive-based, rather than state-enforced sterilization or genocide. He frames this approach as a "better" alternative, emphasizing freedom and personal choice. However, his narratives still assume a deterministic link between genetics and traits such as intelligence, longevity, and leadership, a perspective that modern genetics and social sciences have largely challenged.

Although Heinlein flirted with eugenic concepts, he fundamentally opposed state-mandated eugenics programs. His works express an interest in human self-improvement, survivalism, and rational breeding choices rather than the racial or coercive policies seen in real-world eugenics movements. However, his emphasis on genetic determinism and the inherent superiority of long-lived, highly capable individuals echoes classical eugenic thinking, albeit within a framework of personal liberty rather than state control.

Other key and influential science fiction authors I enjoyed that have Eugenics themes and notably all of them are men. 

1. Frank Herbert who wrote the very popular Dune series that features the Bene Gesserit, a secretive order conducting a centuries-long genetic breeding program to create the "Kwisatz Haderach," an ideal human leader. Herbert acknowledges the dangers of genetic manipulation while also portraying it as an effective way to create superior beings.

2. Isaac Asimov who wrote the Foundation series and The Gods Themselves. He is generally skeptical of authoritarian eugenics, but many of his stories assume that intelligence and leadership are hereditary traits.

3. Poul Anderson who wrote The Man Who Counts . He was soft pro-eugenics, favoring libertarian models over government-mandated programs.

4. L. Ron Hubbard who wrote Battlefield Earth.  His ideas later influenced Scientology, which includes beliefs about genetic purity and mental superiority.

5. Arthur C. Clark who wrote Childhood’s End and 2001: A Space Odyssey.  Clarke was more focused on human evolution through external intervention (aliens, AI) rather than breeding programs, but his work reflects social Darwinist ideas.

6. Aldous Huxley who wrote Brave New World. He used this book to satirize and warn against state-controlled eugenics and social engineering.

7. John W. Campbell who wrote Who Goes There? That explored themes of genetic superiority and survival of the fittest. Campbell promoted stories about genetically superior humans and was a vocal supporter of "rational breeding" and genetic improvement.

   
   

The history of The Eugenics Movement in history was  a social and scientific campaign aimed at improving the genetic quality of human populations through selective breeding and sterilization policies. It was based on the flawed belief that certain traits—such as intelligence, health, and morality—were inherited and could be strengthened or eliminated through controlled reproduction.

The idea that certain individuals, often deemed genetically gifted or mentally superior, naturally rise above the masses presents an inherent problem—it reinforces division and perpetuates the “othering” of people, ultimately fragmenting communities and establishing hierarchical structures.

From a post-colonial perspective, the notion that race, gender, or other identity markers should define human worth or ability is a deliberate tool of division, historically used to maintain power structures and prevent unity among people who, when given equal opportunities, could thrive, build meaningful relationships, and foster inclusive communities. Rather than reinforcing separation, societies should embrace diversity, equity, and inclusion, recognizing that collaboration and shared experiences strengthen communities rather than weaken them.

White Male Authors (1950s–1970s)	Often portrayed genetic superiority as inevitable or beneficial, even if state-controlled eugenics was rejected
Women Sci-Fi Authors	Used genetic themes but often questioned the ethics of breeding programs and control over reproduction.
Non-White Authors	Frequently deconstructed eugenicist logic, showing how power structures dictate who is considered "superior".

Charles Darwin’s Influence (1859–1870s)

 In 1859, Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species, introducing natural selection—the idea that organisms with advantageous traits survive and reproduce, while those with less favorable traits die out.In 1871, Darwin expanded his ideas in The Descent of Man, applying evolution to human development. He suggested that intelligence, morality, and physical traits could be subject to selection pressures. He warned, however, that modern civilization protected the weak, which could hinder natural selection—a statement that Francis Galton would later use to justify eugenics. 

Darwin was NOT a eugenicist. While he acknowledged that modern civilization reduced "natural selection" pressures, he also wrote in Descent of Man (1871) that moral instincts, like compassion and caring for the weak, were also part of human evolution. Francis Galton distorted Darwin’s ideas by arguing that humanity should take active control over its evolutionary future. 

Francis Galton is considered “The Father of Eugenics”. Galton was Charles Darwin’s half-cousin and a wealthy/white/male English scientist. He took Darwin’s theory of evolution and extended it into "social Darwinism", applying it to human intelligence, morality, and society.In 1865, Galton wrote Hereditary Talent and Character, arguing that intelligence and other traits were hereditary.In 1883, he coined the term "eugenics", from the Greek word "eu" (good) + "genēs" (born), meaning "well-born." Darwin’s son, Leonard Darwin, later became a major supporter of the eugenics movement, continuing Galton’s work into the 20th century.

Core ideas of early eugenics:

• The belief that intelligence, criminality, and poverty were genetically inherited.

• Encouraging the reproduction of the "fit" (upper-class, white, educated people).

• Discouraging or preventing the "unfit" (poor, disabled, mentally ill, criminals, and racial minorities) from having children.

• Using scientific breeding to "improve" humanity, similar to selective breeding in animals.

  
  

The Eugenics Movement gained traction in Britain, then spread to the United States and Germany. Between the 1880’s and 1910s.Early scientific justifications included IQ tests, biometric studies, and social science research that falsely claimed certain races and classes were inherently superior. The U.S. led the way with laws in 30 states authorizing the sterilization of people with disabilities, mental illnesses, and other traits deemed hereditary.

Eugenic ideas were widely accepted in elite and political circles, leading to:

• Immigration restrictions (e.g., U.S. Immigration Act of 1924).

• Forced sterilization laws in the U.S., Canada, and parts of Europe.

• Marriage laws banning unions between "undesirable" groups.

• Institutionalization of the "feebleminded", particularly targeting disabled individuals and minorities.

• 
  

Nazi Germany took eugenics to an extreme, enacting racial hygiene laws and ultimately using eugenics as a justification for the Holocaust.

Impact & Legacy

The eugenics movement contributed to lasting discrimination against marginalized groups, including people with disabilities, people of color, and the poor. While discredited, eugenics influenced later discussions on genetics, bioethics, and reproductive rights, raising ethical concerns about genetic engineering and medical interventions.

The decline of the eugenics movement in the U.S. and the broader public understanding of its moral and scientific failures happened gradually after World War II, but key events accelerated this shift between the late 1940s and the 1970s. People slowly realized that eugenics was both wrong and unscientific.

Immediate Post-War Realizations (1945–1950s)

The Nazi regime’s use of eugenics to justify sterilization, euthanasia programs, and the Holocaust exposed the dangers of racial hygiene ideology. The Nuremberg Trials revealed medical experiments and mass sterilizations, directly linking American eugenics to Nazi policies (Germany had drawn inspiration from U.S. sterilization laws). The Nuremberg Code (1947) established ethical guidelines for human experimentation, condemning forced sterilizations and unethical medical practices.

Advancements in genetics debunked the simplistic hereditarian views of early eugenics. New discoveries in genetics proved that early eugenics was wrong. Intelligence and personality are not controlled by just one or two genes.  Scientists increasingly understood that complex traits like intelligence, behavior, and mental illness were influenced by both genes and environment. The Civil Rights Movement (1950s–1960s) further exposed the racist underpinnings of eugenics, which had disproportionately targeted marginalized communities (Black, Indigenous, poor, and disabled populations).

While compulsory sterilization continued in the U.S. into the 1970s, legal and civil rights challenges emerged. Lawsuits were filed by victims of forced sterilization, leading to state-by-state repeals of sterilization laws. The U.S. had largely rejected eugenics, though its legacy persisted in immigration policies, medical ethics debates, and discussions on genetic engineering. Skinner v. Oklahoma (1942): The Supreme Court ruled against sterilization as punishment but did not overturn all sterilization laws.

Buck v. Bell (1927) remained law, but state sterilization programs lost legitimacy.

Exposures of forced sterilization programs (often targeting Native American, Black, and poor women) led to national outrage. The 1973 Relf v. Weinberger case revealed that thousands of Black women and girls were sterilized without informed consent under federal programs. The Indian Health Service was found to have sterilized 25%–50% of Native American women of childbearing age in the 1970s.

In the 1990s and 2000s, several states issued formal apologies and compensation to sterilization victims, including North Carolina, Virginia, and California. The 1994 U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum and education programs connected eugenics to Nazi war crimes, reinforcing its moral failure.Today, the eugenics movement is widely regarded as a pseudoscientific violation of human rights, though echoes of its ideology can still be seen in contemporary debates about genetics and reproductive policies.

There has been no widespread cultural reckoning with the trauma and realization of how deeply eugenics influenced Nazi policies and ideology in the American culture.. Similarly, there was cultural acknowledgement from the white/male & female populations  in the United States of its own role in the forced sterilization of large swaths of people, particularly those from marginalized communities.

As a presenting white person, I have sat in conversations with individuals completely unaware of how their own family histories intersect with these movements, just as my own family has struggled to confront their inherited prejudices that contributed to eugenics-based policies. Meanwhile, the education system has, over time, slowly erased or diluted discussions of these powerful propaganda movements, leaving us historically detached from their consequences.

Now, we stand at a critical threshold of ignorance—one defined by mass misinformation, internalized biases, and an inability to recognize historical patterns. This makes society extraordinarily vulnerable to the rise of Project 2025 and its eugenics-adjacent ideologies. 

It cannot be understated, or go unacknowledged;  that this era’s political and ideological leader, (born 1946) were shaped by a time when eugenics was still deeply ingrained in social and political thought, making its influence on current movements undeniable.

What MODERN Science tells us now about Eugenics

Today, science overwhelmingly rejects eugenics as both scientifically flawed and ethically unacceptable. While early eugenicists believed that intelligence, morality, and social behaviors were purely genetic, modern genetics, neuroscience, and social sciences have debunked these simplistic and dangerous ideas. 

Most human traits, including intelligence and behavior, are influenced by thousands of genes interacting with environmental factors (epigenetics, education, nutrition, culture). Twin studies show that intelligence and personality are only partly hereditary—the environment plays an enormous role. Attempts to "breed" humans for specific traits would not work the way eugenicists imagined. Intelligence is shaped by nutrition, education, stress, healthcare, and social environment as much as by genes. Even genetic studies on IQ show no single "intelligence gene." Instead, intelligence involves hundreds of small genetic factors plus life experiences.

IQ tests, which eugenicists use as "proof" of superiority, have been criticized for cultural bias and failing to measure real-world intelligence. Race is NOT a meaningful genetic category—there is more genetic diversity within racial groups than between them. Modern genetics has shown that all humans share 99.9% of their DNA, and racial differences are superficial adaptations (e.g., skin color, not intelligence or morality). Science proves over and over that we ALL belong to the HUMAN RACE. 

Early eugenicists cherry-picked "data" to support racist policies, ignoring counter-evidence. Modern genetic technologies (e.g., CRISPR, gene therapy) focus on curing diseases, NOT controlling populations. The Nuremberg Code (1947) and the Belmont Report (1979) established strict ethical guidelines for medical and genetic research, ensuring informed consent and human rights protections. Today, genetic research is focused on treating genetic disorders (e.g., cystic fibrosis, sickle cell anemia) rather than "improving" the human race.

What is Happening in our Government Now in 2025

Project 2025, a political plan backed by conservative think tanks and figures, outlines a radical restructuring of the U.S. government, emphasizing authoritarian executive power, dismantling of federal agencies, and rollback of civil rights protections. 

While it does not explicitly promote eugenics in the traditional sense (forced sterilization or racial purity laws), many of its proposals echo the ideological undercurrents of the eugenics movement, particularly in terms of social engineering, discrimination, and control over marginalized populations.

Breaking it Down in Examples

The eugenics movement sought to control the reproduction and rights of marginalized groups, particularly people of color, disabled individuals, LGBTQ+ people, and the poor.

• Project 2025 Parallels:

  • Proposals to curtail LGBTQ+ rights, including rolling back protections for transgender individuals, banning gender-affirming care, and restricting reproductive rights, mirror the forced sterilization programs of the 20th century, which disproportionately targeted these same communities.

  • Efforts to restrict immigration based on ideological and cultural preferences parallel early eugenicists’ push for immigration restrictions to maintain a "desirable" population.

The movement promoted forced sterilizations and restrictions on reproductive autonomy to engineer a “better” society.

• Project 2025 Parallels:

  • Stronger government control over women’s reproductive rights, such as banning abortion and potentially restricting contraception, aligns with historical eugenic policies that sought to control which women could or could not have children.

  • Calls for redefining marriage and gender roles reinforce a rigid, state-mandated social structure akin to the racial and gender hierarchies promoted by eugenics.

Eugenicists promoted state intervention to “improve” society, arguing that the government should determine who was “fit” to participate fully in civic life.

• Project 2025 Parallels:

  • The plan calls for expanding executive power and purging federal agencies to consolidate control under a single ideological vision, allowing for the top-down enforcement of discriminatory policies.

  • Proposed changes to education, social services, and law enforcement would allow the government to dictate who gets access to essential resources and rights, a mechanism eerily similar to eugenics-based social engineering.

Many American eugenicists framed their ideology in religious and moral terms, arguing that their policies were necessary to uphold "civilization" and "moral purity."

• Project 2025 Parallels:

  • Heavy emphasis on Christian nationalist ideology as the foundation for lawmaking echoes the eugenicists’ moral justification for controlling populations.

  • Framing certain groups (LGBTQ+, non-Christians, racial minorities) as threats to social orderaligns with past eugenic justifications for excluding or sterilizing the “undesirable.”

Eugenic policies often served capitalist interests by ensuring a "productive" workforce and eliminating those deemed "unfit" from economic participation.

• Project 2025 Parallels:

  • Calls to gut social safety nets, remove labor protections, and deregulate health care will disproportionately harm disabled individuals, the poor, and marginalized communities, similar to how eugenics sought to limit state resources for the "unfit."

  • The dismantling of federal agencies weakens oversight of corporate discrimination, allowing market-driven selection of who thrives in society—a form of economic eugenics.

Definitions for this Blog

1. Eugenics – The belief that some people are better than others because of their genes and that society should control who has children.

2. Implicit bias – Unconscious thoughts or stereotypes that affect how we treat people without realizing it.

3. Explicit bias – Openly stated beliefs that discriminate against certain groups.

4. Selective breeding – The process of choosing which people (or animals) should have children based on their traits.

5. Genetic determinism – The false idea that a person’s intelligence, success, or behavior is decided only by their genes.

6. Pseudoscience – A belief or idea that claims to be based on science but is actually false or misleading.

7. Social engineering – When governments or organizations try to shape society by controlling people’s choices or behaviors.

8. Authoritarianism – A government system where leaders have total control, and people have few freedoms.

9. Libertarianism – A belief in personal freedom with very little government control.

10. Hierarchy – A system where some people are placed above others based on power, race, or social status.

11. Marginalized communities – Groups of people who have been treated unfairly or excluded from full participation in society.

12. Propaganda – False or misleading information used to influence people’s opinions.

13. Neurodiverse – A term used to describe people with different ways of thinking, such as those with autism or ADHD.

14. Project 2025 – A political plan that aims to change the U.S. government in ways that may take away rights from certain groups.

    
    

    Additional notes: Elon Musk was born in South Africa in 1971, during the apartheid era (1948–1994). Apartheid was a system of institutionalized racial segregation and discrimination enforced by the South African government. Under apartheid, non-white South Africans faced severe restrictions on their rights, including where they could live, work, and receive education.

    Musk’s childhood in Pretoria occurred during the height of apartheid policies, though he has stated in interviews that he was largely unaware of the political situation as a child. His family was part of the white minority that benefited from the racial privileges of the time, though he left South Africa at age 17 to avoid mandatory military service under the apartheid government and to pursue education in the U.S. and Canada. His unconscous and clearly amplified bias are examples of ingrained Eugenics thinking.