Eugenics, Race, and The Urantia Book

For some people the word eugenics is a bad word. Horrified by how humanity has acted in the past, they attempt to redefine the word in a manner that is inconsistent with its original meaning and dictionary definition; eugenics is transformed into something that is inappropriate by definition. Others accept the “technical” definition, but exhibit such a low opinion of humanity that the word becomes “guilty by association” no matter who uses it or how.

However well intentioned a person may be in their attempt to redefine the term, either explicitly or through selective negative historical contexts, the wisdom of such attempts is appropriately the subject of scrutiny. The first casualty in linguistic wars over the definition of terms is all too often not only the death of ideas, but, even worse, the death of creative and progressive thinking. Turning eugenics into a bad word, redefining it in a manner contrary to its origin and dictionary definition, is nothing more than a transparent attempt, based on fear and a low opinion about humanity, to make certain thoughts “unthinkable” and to eliminate progressive and creative thinking. Typically the next step in killing off the conversation is to then pretend the new “politically correct” definition is the only and proper definition of eugenics. Such an assertion becomes the justification for misinterpreting anything written that uses the original and dictionary definition of eugenics. Stooping to such tactics is, of course, intellectually dishonest. On an interpersonal level, such conduct indicates either the inability to think outside of one’s own belief system or the intentional misrepresentation of someone else’s perspective.

The topic of eugenics has fallen into disfavor because of historical and contemporary atrocities carried out explicitly or implicitly in the name of eugenics. If such atrocities are the justification for rejecting eugenics, we are allowing the “bad guys” to get something from us that cannot actually be taken—our ability to think creatively and progressively.

What if people rejected the word democracy and its etymological meaning because of how it has been (or continues to be) used by governments that disallowed political enfranchisement because of race or gender? Would we be better off if the underlying and inherent principles of democracy were not progressively developed because it got off to a bad start? Do not the contemporary associations with democracy indicate that a maturation process has occurred? Why should it be the case that democracy can evolve in a positive direction but eugenics cannot?

If someone intentionally uses a hammer to attack another person without cause, does this make the hammer bad? Or, if the use of a hammer is somehow misdirected and causes great harm, even though such may have occurred with the best of intentions, is this a justification for dispensing with hammers altogether and criticizing those who wish, with all good intentions and wholesome values, to discover a productive and reasonably safe use for the tool? Is this really an issue of degree? Would a large enough group of people using hammers with hateful motivations and for destructive purposes make the hammer bad or lacking in inherently positive potentials?

Consider how evil works, or said another way, how selfish and/or misdirected individuals sometimes act. They identify themselves as the champions of a good thing and, in so doing, discredited it through their association. Often this is done by promoting an expression of the good idea in a poor way, thus making it appear that the good idea is fundamentally unworkable, impractical, or otherwise fatally flawed. This goes on with politics, God, religion, social policies, economic policies, etc. Those who unwittingly get used by such charlatans become the excuse for why humanity cannot be trusted. Let’s keep our wits about us. If we are going to consider giving up on eugenics altogether, we at least have an obligation to ourselves to first consider what good eugenics practices might look like, so that we understand the potentials and possibilities we are abandoning. As well, and this is the part that is so often left undone, if someone is going to argue against eugenics, then due consideration must be given to and support offered for why the status quo or some other option is better.

3) Semantics and Physiology

Writing about immediate circumstances for a contemporary audience is distinctly different than writing for multiple generations of readers about issues that are ongoing for humanity. Certain challenges exist for authors who chose to address a broader audience regarding issues that can change considerably from generation to generation. When it comes to sensitive subjects, even if one is only trying to address contemporaries, intended meanings are often lost over issues of semantics. What passes for tact in one generation may be completely misinterpreted by future generations. Creating the conversation based on the linguistic preferences of the current generation limits the value of such writing for future generations.

The Urantia Book is intended for a multigenerational audience and needs to be appreciated in this context. The authors do not pander to those who need to be spoken to “delicately.” Because the audience for The Urantia Book is multigenerational and eugenics issues are multigenerational in nature, the authors appropriately speak to us in plain language and use terminology that is intended to be taken literally and within the full context of what the book has to say on the subject.

The Urantia Book is not written from a value neutral, “politically correct” perspective. The authors assert that the potential for progress is a hallmark for humanity; humanity’s cultures and genetic endowments are variable in quality and can be progressively developed. Ironically, often the very same people who want to criticize racist behavior on a collective level as “wrong” and “inappropriate,” in the next breath want to criticize the use of words like “backward” and “inferior” being used in a cultural context. Similarly, some people are perfectly comfortably talking about inferior and superior genetic traits in nonhuman animals, but then object when the same terminology is applied to human physiology.

The disinclination to consistently use applicable terminology, however well intentioned, is counterproductive when the goal is to be unambiguous. The last thing we need is a whole new set of words to say exactly the same things about human physiology that would otherwise be perfectly acceptable to say about nonhuman animals. The authors have no more compunction about using words like subnormal, inferior, or degenerate in a physiological context in the same manner that these terms are regularly applied to nonhuman animals.

Simply put, to appreciate what The Urantia Book has to say about eugenics, genetics, and race, a person needs to rise above issues of semantics. And we need to embrace that values are not value neutral. If the reader is but willing, the authorship of The Urantia Book can easily be celebrated as refreshingly straight forward and be respected as the clearest and simplest way to express ideas that are intended for multiple generations of readers in varying cultural contexts.

The factual basis for eugenics is well established and acknowledged whenever the discussion is reserved for nonhuman animals. According to The Urantia Book, even primitive man had enough common sense to note the nature and importance of eugenics. In the Endogamy and Exogamy section of a chapter titled The Evolution of Marriage, it states:

Very early the savage observed that race mixture improved the quality of the offspring. It was not that inbreeding was always bad, but that outbreeding was always comparatively better; therefore the mores tended to crystallize in restriction of sex relations among near relatives. It was recognized that outbreeding greatly increased the selective opportunity for evolutionary variation and advancement. The outbred individuals were more versatile and had greater ability to survive in a hostile world; the inbreeders, together with their mores, gradually disappeared. This was all a slow development; the savage did not consciously reason about such problems. But the later and advancing peoples did, and they also made the observation that general weakness sometimes resulted from excessive inbreeding.

While the inbreeding of good stock sometimes resulted in the upbuilding of strong tribes, the spectacular cases of the bad results of the inbreeding of hereditary defectives more forcibly impressed the mind of man, with the result that the advancing mores increasingly formulated taboos against all marriages among near relatives.(1)

The Urantia Book admonishes us, “The normal man should be fostered; he is the backbone of civilization and the source of the mutant geniuses of the race.”(2) Additional quotes, which will be provided later in this paper, also support what is already indicated thus far—that The Urantia Book’s statements about eugenics are incompatible with those who have a “master race” agenda. It affirms what every breeder of domesticated animals discovered long ago: excessive inbreeding tends to undermine the general health of an animal and, in some cases, produces absolutely terrible results. Crossbreeding of average or above average stocks supports the robust development of various and desirable traits. The human animal is no different in this regard.

We now know that these hereditary issues have to do with the nature of genes and how they are transmitted from one generation to the next. And while The Urantia Book’s assertion that “the savage” figured this out a long time ago may be something that is unprovable, clearly, practitioners of animal husbandry recognized these obvious issues long before the scientific age.

The diversity of genetic qualities and characteristics is not really what is so controversial. Controversy is made out of the subject primarily to avoid asking what we should do about it.

Denying the facts of science retards our personal development as well as our collective development. Similarly, the fundamental issues regarding racism and eugenics are not so controversial—most everyone is appalled, except the racists, who typically promote their agendas by any and all means available. It is an ironic tragedy that those who work to combat racism also often work against the implementation of humane, just, fair, and democratically established eugenics practices that would in all likelihood help curtail, if not eliminate, the racist, violent, coercive, and non democratically established eugenics practices that have gone on and continue to go on today.

Eugenics is no more a theoretical issue than racism. If those who care about racism want to be effective, they need to acknowledge the difference between eugenics and racism. The failure to honor this distinction is especially counterproductive.

Footnotes:

1) Urantia Book 82:5.1,2

2) Urantia Book 68:6.11