Eugenics, Race, and The Urantia Book

The Urantia Book directly addresses issues related to the long-term value of racial diversity, the interrelationship between cultural development and racial vitality, and the specific challenges we face because of the Lucifer rebellion and the Adamic default.

The inclusion of the theological/cosmological material is not offered as a justification or support for anything The Urantia Book says about eugenics. It is included because of the importance of providing direct quotes and to demonstrate the internal consistency, logic, and values that can only come with this broadened perspective.

Chapter 64 “The Evolutionary Races of Color” lists some of the inherent values that come from racial diversity:

There are many good and sufficient reasons for the plan of evolving . . . six colored races. . . Though Urantia mortals may not be in a position fully to appreciate all of these reasons, we would call attention to the following:

1.   Variety is indispensable to opportunity for the wide functioning of natural selection, differential survival of superior strains.

2.   Stronger and better races are to be had from the interbreeding of diverse peoples when these different races are carriers of superior inheritance factors. And the Urantia races would have benefited by such an early amalgamation provided such a conjoint people could have been subsequently effectively upstepped by a thoroughgoing admixture with the superior Adamic stock. The attempt to execute such an experiment on Urantia under present racial conditions would be highly disastrous.

3.   Competition is healthfully stimulated by diversification of races.

4.   Differences in status of the races and of groups within each race are essential to the development of human tolerance and altruism.(1)

The above statements are better understood when looked at in relationship to some other statements made about the variously colored races. But, in order to understand this complementary quote, the context needs to be explained.

The quote below is found in a section that generally describes the way most mortal worlds develop. The Urantia Book explains that our world falls into the category of an “experimental” planet. The Life Carriers are, among other things, entrusted with the task of making improvements to the basic biological design for evolving mortals and are allowed to make certain adjustments to the design on ten percent of the planets. Life Carriers are said to get the life process started by implanting a single-celled, evolutionary life form, designed to evolve both gradually and by periodic mutations.

All planets are said to evolve life with either three or six colored races. The ones with three have red, yellow, and blue. The ones with six also have orange, green, and indigo. (Our orange and green race fought to the extinction of both races.) Usually, the various colored races appear one at a time, through the color spectrum from red to indigo, not all from one mother, as is the case with our planet, according to The Urantia Book.

The evolution of six—or of three—colored races, while seeming to deteriorate the original endowment of the red man, provides certain very desirable variations in mortal types and affords an otherwise unattainable expression of diverse human potentials. These modifications are beneficial to the progress of mankind as a whole provided they are subsequently upstepped by the imported Adamic or violet race. [Adam and Eve are said to have had skin with a violet hue.] On Urantia this usual plan of amalgamation was not extensively carried out, and this failure to execute the plan of race evolution makes it impossible for you to understand very much about the status of these peoples on an average inhabited planet by observing the remnants of these early races on your world.(2)

There are no pure races in the world today. The early and original evolutionary peoples of color have only two representative races persisting in the world, the yellow man and the black man; and even these two races are much admixed with the extinct colored peoples. While the so-called white race is predominantly descended from the ancient blue man, it is admixed more or less with all other races much as is the red man of the Americas.

Of the six colored Sangik races, three were primary and three were secondary. Though the primary races—blue, red, and yellow—were in many respects superior to the three secondary peoples, it should be remembered that these secondary races had many desirable traits which would have considerably enhanced the primary peoples if their better strains could have been absorbed.

. . .

Hybridization of superior and dissimilar stocks is the secret of the creation of new and more vigorous strains. And this is true of plants, animals, and the human species. Hybridization augments vigor and increases fertility. Race mixtures of the average or superior strata of various peoples greatly increase creative potential, as is shown in the present population of the United States of North America. When such matings take place between the lower or inferior strata, creativity is diminished, as is shown by the present-day peoples of southern India.

Race blending greatly contributes to the sudden appearance of new characteristics, and if such hybridization is the union of superior strains, then these new characteristics will also be superior traits.

. . .

Biologically considered, the secondary Sangiks [orange, green, and indigo] were in some respects superior to the primary races [red, yellow, and blue].(3)

The process of planetary evolution is orderly and controlled. The development of higher organisms from lower groupings of life is not accidental. Sometimes evolutionary progress is temporarily delayed by the destruction of certain favorable lines of life plasm carried in a selected species. It often requires ages upon ages to recoup the damage occasioned by the loss of a single superior strain of human heredity. These selected and superior strains of living protoplasm should be jealously and intelligently guarded when once they make their appearance. And on most of the inhabited worlds these superior potentials of life are valued much more highly than on Urantia.(4)

The Urantia Book uses the word “strains” to refer to the genetic underpinning that create “traits.” “Race blending greatly contributes to the sudden appearance of new characteristics, and if such hybridization is the union of superior strains, then these new characteristics will also be superior traits.” The authors specifically mention, “Biologically considered, the secondary Sangiks were in some respects superior to the primary races.” And then they provide a perspective followed by a recommendation. “It often requires ages upon ages to recoup the damage occasioned by the loss of a single superior strain of human heredity. These selected and superior strains of living protoplasm should be jealously and intelligently guarded when once they make their appearance.”

The Urantia Book teaches that we all have moral and ethical obligations to humanity and that working for the benefit of one’s race needs to be attenuated by the prioritization of our common spiritual heritage. Humanity as a whole comes first. By asserting that inherently superior genetic traits exist in all of the races and that these should be “intelligently guarded,” the authors effectively confound any attempts to distort the teachings of The Urantia Book into racist doctrines.

The spiritual importance of this issue is interwoven into “The Life and Teachings of Jesus” section of The Urantia Book.

They [a particular group of gentiles listening to Jesus] grasped the teaching that God is no respecter of persons, races, or nations; that there is no favoritism with the Universal Father . . . These gentiles were not afraid of Jesus; they dared to accept his message. All down through the ages men have not been unable to comprehend Jesus; they have been afraid to.(5)

Additionally, the authors definitively point us in the right direction for social evolution by basing the foundation for human relations on “mortal kinship and brotherhood.”

Flexible and shifting social classes are indispensable to an evolving civilization, but when class becomes caste, when social levels petrify, the enhancement of social stability is purchased by diminishment of personal initiative. Social caste solves the problem of finding one's place in industry, but it also sharply curtails individual development and virtually prevents social co-operation.

Classes in society, having naturally formed, will persist until man gradually achieves their evolutionary obliteration through intelligent manipulation of the biologic, intellectual, and spiritual resources of a progressing civilization, such as:

1.   Biologic renovation of the racial stocks—the selective elimination of inferior human strains. This will tend to eradicate many mortal inequalities.

2.   Educational training of the increased brain power which will arise out of such biologic improvement.

3.   Religious quickening of the feelings of mortal kinship and brotherhood.

But these measures can bear their true fruits only in the distant millenniums of the future, although much social improvement will immediately result from the intelligent, wise, and patient manipulation of these acceleration factors of cultural progress. Religion is the mighty lever that lifts civilization from chaos, but it is powerless apart from the fulcrum of sound and normal mind resting securely on sound and normal heredity.(6)

While a good environment cannot contribute much toward really overcoming the character handicaps of a base heredity, a bad environment can very effectively spoil an excellent inheritance, at least during the younger years of life. Good social environment and proper education are indispensable soil and atmosphere for getting the most out of a good inheritance.(7)

This next selection comes from a section that explains the normal development of mortal worlds, worlds with beings similar to us. The authors reference the time period when an “Adam and Eve” appear on such a planet, providing additional genetic benefits on that world. And they also interweave comments about our unusual circumstances in relationship to our Adam and Eve, who are said to have lived about 38,000 years ago.

The races are purified and brought up to a high state of physical perfection and intellectual strength before the end of this era [when an Adam and Eve arrive]. The early development of a normal world is greatly helped by the plan of promoting the increase of the higher types of mortals with proportionate curtailment of the lower. And it is the failure of your early peoples to thus discriminate between these types that accounts for the presence of so many defective and degenerate individuals among the present-day Urantia races.

One of the great achievements of the [pre Adam and Eve] age . . . is this restriction of the multiplication of mentally defective and socially unfit individuals. Long before the times of the arrival of . . . [Adam and Eve] most worlds seriously address themselves to the tasks of race purification, something which the Urantia peoples have not even yet seriously undertaken.

This problem of race improvement is not such an extensive undertaking when it is attacked at this early date in human evolution. The preceding period of tribal struggles and rugged competition in race survival has weeded out most of the abnormal and defective strains. An idiot does not have much chance of survival in a primitive and warring tribal social organization. It is the false sentiment of your partially perfected civilizations that fosters, protects, and perpetuates the hopelessly defective strains of evolutionary human stocks.

It is neither tenderness nor altruism to bestow futile sympathy upon degenerated human beings, unsalvable abnormal and inferior mortals. There exist on even the most normal of the evolutionary worlds sufficient differences between individuals and between numerous social groups to provide for the full exercise of all those noble traits of altruistic sentiment and unselfish mortal ministry without perpetuating the socially unfit and the morally degenerate strains of evolving humanity. There is abundant opportunity for the exercise of tolerance and the function of altruism in behalf of those unfortunate and needy individuals who have not irretrievably lost their moral heritage and forever destroyed their spiritual birthright.(8)

Sadly, it is possible for individuals who look human and who can reproduce with humans to not have an essential human quality because of “abnormal” genetic differences that are “inferior” because they render the individual spiritually “unsalvable”—not even in possession of the potential to make a moral choice and, therefore, never able to enjoy the cognitive function necessary to develop a soul that can survive mortal existence. According to The Urantia Book, specific beliefs are not required in order for our soul to develop, only that we are making moral choices—choosing good over evil. This standard is fundamentally similar to the legal requirement of knowing the difference between right and wrong in order to be held accountable for a crime. When legal systems are confronted with the issue, the spectrum is generally defined in terms of a spectrum that includes various forms and degrees of mental retardation and then goes into sociopathic disorders. This is the essential quality of meaning when The Urantia Book uses the word “unsalvable” in this context.

Similar to our laws, statements in The Urantia Book define the entitlements that come from being human, “spiritual birthright,” with the ability to be “moral,” to know the difference between right and wrong. It indicates that we need to seriously consider the dangers associated with not applying this distinction consistently throughout our culture; The Urantia Book encourages us to be consistent and comprehensive in how we deal with those who have “irretrievably lost their moral heritage and forever destroyed their spiritual birthright.”

Civilizations rest upon a genetic foundation. But just because we make a distinction for legal or other reasons about “knowing the difference between right and wrong,” this does not mean that, once we’re in the category of knowing the difference between right and wrong, there are no more variations left regarding the quality of mind. Knowing the difference between right and wrong simply demarcates one end of a spectrum. For the purpose of establishing spiritual/interpersonal relationships, no more distinctions are necessary. This is an all or nothing demarcation. If you know the difference between right and wrong, then “Welcome to the human family.” For the purpose of establishing material cultural, people have varying degrees of mental capabilities that are not only various “colors” but are also of various qualities. The development and perpetuation of civilization is directly proportional to the general quality of a population’s genetic endowment relating to mental function.

The distinction between the spiritual and material aspects of our circumstances are reflected in the statement, “The church, because of overmuch false sentiment, has long ministered to the underprivileged and the unfortunate, and this has all been well, but this same sentiment has led to the unwise perpetuation of racially degenerate stocks which have tremendously retarded the progress of civilization.”(9) It is all well and good because people have meant well and that has real and eternal spiritual value. A secular interpretation would be that tenderheartedness is a positive quality that gets passed on to future generations. But good intentions do not equate to a positive effect on our collective gene pool. These are separate issues. We need to learn to both mean well and do well.

In our quest for spiritual attainment we have been undoing an important check and balance that nature otherwise provides. “An idiot does not have much chance of survival in a primitive and warring tribal social organization. It is the false sentiment of your partially perfected civilizations that fosters, protects, and perpetuates the hopelessly defective strains of evolutionary human stocks.” Doing things that are antithetical to eugenics is dangerous and especially unintelligent. We do dangerous and unintelligent things because we let our emotions dominate our intellect.

The Urantia Book suggests we adopt a higher standard of morality, one that is intellectual and spiritually integrated. “It is neither tenderness nor altruism to bestow futile sympathy upon degenerated human beings, unsalvable abnormal and inferior mortals.” Sympathy is “futile” sympathy when the mind of the individual receiving it that cannot support a truly human level of consciousness. When we do this in a way that “fosters, protects, and perpetuates the hopelessly defective strains of evolutionary human stocks,” it actually does us all harm and we need to acknowledge this for what it is. There is a difference between wanting to be serviceable and actually being serviceable. The former reflects having a positive inward spiritual experience or intention; the latter reflects having a positive external influence or effect on others.

We face an enormous challenge, of course, because all gradations of quality present throughout the world’s population. When exactly this gradation reaches the degradation level that renders an individual incapable of making normal life decisions and moral choices is very difficult to say. Our tendency is to avoid making a mistake in specific instances. This, unfortunately, leads us directly to being charitable in ways that undermine the important benefits of natural selection. The authors are as reserved as they can be in offering advice, while at the same time saying what is necessary to say—that we are proactively doing things to make a serious situation worse. The Urantia Book’s cosmology asserts that our religious traditions regarding Lucifer, Satan, and the Devil do have elements of truth to them. Our world is said to suffer the loss of spiritual administrators, who would have otherwise been with us in a material form to help us handle these issues. The loss is said to be temporary, pending the full adjudication of those who went into rebellion.

While the truth of this cosmological assertion, of course, is not at issue, this paradigm does reflect the book’s sympathetic regard for the moral and ethical challenges we face and provides perspective for its conservative recommendation.

The difficulty of executing such a radical program on Urantia [referring to the one that would have been carried out by our celestial administrators] consists in the absence of competent judges to pass upon the biologic fitness or unfitness of the individuals of your world races. Notwithstanding this obstacle, it seems that you ought to be able to agree upon the biologic disfellowshiping of your more markedly unfit, defective, degenerate, and antisocial stocks.(10)

All the races of humanity face this problem to some degree; it is a common problem. The suggestion is that we “agree upon the biologic disfellowshiping of (our) more markedly unfit, defective, degenerate, and antisocial stocks.” Biologic disfellowshiping is all that is being discussed here and only in regard to those who are “more markedly unfit, defective, degenerate, and antisocial.” “Unfit, defective, degenerate, and antisocial” are qualified by the word “markedly.” Not “generally,” “somewhat,” “rather,” or “decidedly.” The authors used the word “markedly” and the message they deliver needs to be respected for being qualified in this manner.

The authors of The Urantia Book assert that we are developing serious problems regarding the vitality of our gene pool and that advancing civilization cannot be maintained on the platform of an increasingly degenerating gene pool. It takes a requisite degree of biologic health among the general population to maintain the brainpower necessary for the maintenance and development of an increasingly advanced and complex civilization. This is just common sense.

We need to start recognizing and addressing ourselves to these issues in intelligent, wise, and loving ways. The authors are pointing out something that is difficult for us to talk about. Specifically, some people want to affect social policy, compete for charitable giving, etc. by coming off as being especially tender and altruistic in the promotion of their cause. They are using an emotional appeal to draw others into unwise applications of their tender hearted and altruistic intentions. This is not serviceable to the future of humanity.

However, even if unwise, such behaviors can have personal spiritual value because of the intention to be service-minded. But we must stop allowing ourselves to be so intellectually lazy in shying away from the real challenges associated with wanting to be altruistic. The value of altruism is not consistent with the willingness to sacrifice the long term biologic, mental, and spiritual welfare of humanity as a whole. If people are unconsciously acting in unwise ways, then they need to be educated. If people are consciously acting in unwise ways, this also needs to be addressed.

By getting us to reflect on early human history, the authors of The Urantia Book remind us that nature has a way of dealing with these issues. And nature’s way actually, on the whole, minimizes human suffering a lot more than a well-intentioned but misdirected “humanitarian effort” that “fosters, protects, and perpetuates the hopelessly defective strains of evolutionary human stocks.” By pointing out that “An idiot does not have much chance of survival in a primitive and warring tribal social organization,” the authors help us appreciate what the benchmark for progress needs to look like. Nature provided a mechanism for the progressive betterment of humanity’s gene pool; our efforts should improve upon this essential element of the evolutionary process. If we are not improving upon it, then it is not truly humanitarian but merely a pretense.

The Urantia Book’s specific suggestion does not relate to vast segments of society or a particular racial group. It is not the average, or the somewhat below average, or even the clearly well below average individuals, but rather the “markedly” unfit individuals, who we are encouraged to biologically disfellowship in a unified and comprehensive manner. The authors are addressing basic, fundamental principles of health and wellbeing. “Sound and normal mind resting securely on sound and normal heredity” is contrasted with “abnormal and defective strains,” “hopelessly defective strains,” “an idiot,” “mentally defective and socially unfit individuals.”

Eugenics is what leads directly to appreciating the common sense wisdom found in The Urantia Book: “It is the false sentiment of your partially perfected civilizations that fosters, protects, and perpetuates the hopelessly defective strains of evolutionary human stocks.” The cosmology of The Urantia Book offers a very sympathetic perspective: we are dealing with enormous problems that are not our fault, we do not have the capability to clearly assess our problems, yet we are perfectly capable of making them much worse. This perspective encourages compassion for the variety of beliefs, attitudes, and opinions that exist on this subject and a measure of patience and tolerance for those who forward the conversation to figure out how to address what necessarily needs to be done and yet cuts across current cultural mores.

There is a reasonable debate on some aspects of what constitutes genetic health. On other aspects of genetic health, there is a reasonable degree of consensus. The arguments against acting on the more universally accepted standards of what it means to be “markedly unfit, defective, degenerate, and antisocial” necessarily rely on taking refuge in “slippery slope” arguments. This line of reasoning suggests that once we start down the path of eugenics, even though the first steps might be reasonable, it risks leading to all manner of atrocity later on. This argument is based on a general disparagement of and fundamental cynicism about humanity. It is premised on the belief that we cannot trust ourselves.

For those employing the slippery slope argument, the actual and serious problems we already face, which can only be expected to get worse, are preferable to potential problems. And all this concern comes even though we have the opportunity to identify what it would mean to go too far and take measures to prevent such an occurrence. Whatever imperfections we would have in implementing this approach are denounced as unconscionable. But by some peculiar analysis, the actual harm being done by misdirected but well-intentioned giving is tolerable. Unfortunately, those who retreat into slippery slope arguments must denigrate and diminish the noblest acts of individuals and groups in order to make their point.

Making matters worse is that atrocities with roots in racism and other forms of bigotry get mislabeled as eugenics. Making this distinction is crucial to the conversation. Misdirected people regular try to disguise their true objectives by misapplying terminology. We need to assess when bigotry gets cloaked as eugenics.

As well, good ideas must be distinguished from their early and immature expressions. Eugenics is a good idea, just as democracy is a good idea. If democracy in the United States was denounced a couple hundred years ago because only white men who owned property were allowed to vote, the whole world’s relationship to the development of democratic values and processes would have been greatly curtailed. Expressions of good ideas and their implementation need to be given time to mature.

Human beings are imperfect and whatever we involve ourselves with will reflect our imperfections. Insisting that we abandon eugenics because of what has happened in the past, or because of how some would misuse it today, makes no more sense than disparaging democracy. People abuse democratic processes today and at great cost to society, but this does not become an excuse for abandoning the value of democracy. The same reasoning and commitment to social progress needs to be applied to eugenics.

We need to keep our hearts open, our common sense intact AND muster the moral courage to be responsible stewards of our human gene pool. The authors of The Urantia Book are helping us learn how to develop a good and healthy, even robust, conversation on the subject. It is not telling us how to do what we need to do. There is nothing in the text that is prescriptive about methodologies, except that it is the proper place of religions and religionists to advocate nonviolent social change.

Footnotes:

1) Urantia Book 64:6.30-34

2) Urantia Book 51:4.4

3) Urantia Book 82:6.1,2,5,10

4) Urantia Book 49:1.7

5) Urantia Book 156:2.4

6) Urantia Book 70:8.13-18

7) Urantia Book 76:2.6

8) Urantia Book 52:2.9-12

9) Urantia Book 99:3.5

10) Urantia Book 51:4.1-8