Why Eugenics Is Fucking Terrible

A Data-Driven Takedown

This one’s not subtle, and it’s not short. But it is important. If you care enough to read it, maybe care enough to support it. $5/month gets you the Wednesday breakdowns, the ones that don’t flinch and don’t pull punches.

So you want to know why eugenics is terrible? Buckle up, because we're about to dive into a cesspool of pseudoscience, historical atrocities, and mind-boggling hubris that somehow keeps finding new audiences despite being wrong on literally every level.

Let's start with the basics. Eugenics, derived from the Greek words for "good" and "origin," is the practice of trying to "improve" the human species by controlling who gets to reproduce. Sounds simple enough, right? Just breed the "best" humans together and filter out the "undesirables," and voilà, utopia achieved!

Except no. Not even close.

The term was coined by Francis Galton (Charles Darwin's cousin, fun fact) in 1883, who defined it as "the science of improving stock... to give to the more suitable races or strains of blood a better chance of prevailing speedily over the less suitable." Already we've got "races" and "blood" in there, so you know we're off to a fantastic scientific start.

Galton wasn't some fringe weirdo either. He was a respected polymath who developed statistical concepts we still use today. And yet, he wrote with absolute confidence: "What nature does blindly, slowly, and ruthlessly, man may do providently, quickly, and kindly." This breathtaking arrogance is the foundation of all eugenic thinking. Oh, silly nature with your billions of years of evolutionary processes, let me show you how it's done!

And that brings us to our first major problem...

Evolution doesn't give a flying fuck about your golden years.

This is perhaps the most fundamental misunderstanding in eugenics, and it's a whopper. Evolution, that process that's been shaping life on Earth for about 3.5 billion years, doesn't care what happens to you after you've reproduced and raised your kids to reproductive age. Full stop.

Let's break this down with some actual evolutionary biology. Natural selection works by favoring traits that increase reproductive success. If a gene kills you at age 20, before you've had children, it gets eliminated from the gene pool pretty quickly. If a gene kills you at age 70, long after you've had kids and maybe even helped raise grandkids? Evolution shrugs and says, "Not my problem."

This is called the "selection shadow," and it's a fundamental concept in evolutionary biology that somehow eugenicists keep ignoring. According to a 2016 study in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, selection pressure drops dramatically after reproductive age. In fact, if evolution had its way, we'd probably drop dead immediately after our last child was safely raised to reproductive age themselves. Why waste resources keeping elderly humans alive when they're not making more humans?

Look at the actual data on major killers:

• Heart disease: Kills about 659,000 Americans annually, mostly after age 65

• Cancer: Second leading cause of death, with average age at diagnosis of 66

• Alzheimer's: Affects 6.2 million Americans, almost all over age 65

• Parkinson's: Affects about 1 million Americans, with average onset at 60

Evolution hasn't "fixed" these because they typically occur after humans have already reproduced and raised children. From a purely evolutionary perspective, these conditions are irrelevant.

And yet, eugenicists obsess over creating humans free from disease. Even if you somehow managed to breed humans resistant to everything that kills us today, new late-onset conditions would emerge because there's no selection pressure against them.

Want concrete proof? Look at what happens with animals we've selectively bred. Thoroughbred horses, bred for speed and stamina, frequently develop heart problems in later life. Purebred dogs have breed-specific late-onset diseases despite centuries of intensive selective breeding. German Shepherds get hip dysplasia. Golden Retrievers get cancer. Bulldogs can barely breathe.

You can't outsmart evolution, which has been working for billions of years, by playing God with reproductive choices for a few generations. It's like trying to build a better smartphone when you barely understand electricity.

Eugenics fails spectacularly even if we're just evaluating it on scientific grounds. Let's dig into why the genetic claims made by eugenicists are pure fantasy.

Human genetic diversity is astronomically complex. The human genome contains approximately 20,000 to 25,000 genes, with about 3 billion base pairs of DNA. These genes interact in ways we're still mapping out, with multiple genes influencing single traits and single genes affecting multiple traits (pleiotropy).

A 2021 study published in Cell examined 700,000 individuals and found that even for height, one of the most heritable traits, they identified over 12,000 genetic variants that collectively explain about 40% of height variation. The other 60%? Environmental factors and gene interactions we don't fully understand.

Most traits aren't simple Mendelian inheritances. Remember those Punnett squares from high school biology? Those neat little charts showing dominant and recessive traits? They apply to maybe 5% of human diseases and traits. According to the National Human Genome Research Institute, the vast majority of traits result from complex interactions between multiple genes and environmental factors.

Take intelligence, a favorite target of eugenicists. A 2018 study in Nature Genetics analyzing over one million individuals identified more than 1,200 genetic variants associated with educational attainment (used as a proxy for intelligence). Each variant had a tiny effect, and together they explained only about 11-13% of the variation in educational attainment. That's it. Just 13% at most, after studying over a million people.

Genetic bottlenecks are catastrophically dangerous. Reducing genetic diversity (which is exactly what eugenics aims to do) makes populations more vulnerable to disease and environmental changes. The cheetah, which experienced a genetic bottleneck approximately 12,000 years ago, has about 10% the genetic diversity of other cats. The result? Lower fertility, higher cub mortality, and greater susceptibility to disease.

Let's look at humans. Ashkenazi Jewish populations experienced a historical bottleneck and now have higher rates of specific genetic disorders like Tay-Sachs disease. Similarly, Finland's relative isolation led to the "Finnish disease heritage," a collection of rare genetic disorders more common in Finns than other populations.

Advantageous genes can have hidden costs. Many genes have multiple effects, some beneficial and some harmful. The classic example is sickle cell anemia. The same genetic variant that causes the disease also provides protection against malaria. In regions where malaria is common, having one copy of the gene is beneficial, even though having two copies causes the disease.

This phenomenon, called heterozygote advantage, appears throughout human genetics. A 2020 study in PLOS Genetics found that the genetic variants associated with autism may also be linked to higher cognitive function. Attempting to eliminate "negative" traits could inadvertently remove beneficial ones.

Even if we set aside the scientific and ethical problems (which we absolutely shouldn't), eugenics fails spectacularly on practical grounds.

The timeframe is ridiculously long. Let's be crystal clear: meaningful genetic change through selective breeding takes many generations. With humans, that's a serious time commitment.

Animal breeders can achieve significant changes in about 30-50 generations. For dogs or horses with generation times of 2-3 years, that's manageable. For humans with generation times of 20-30 years? We're talking about 600-1,500 years minimum.

And that's assuming you're breeding for simple traits. For complex traits like disease resistance or intelligence, you'd need even more generations. By the time your eugenics program showed results, society, technology, and environmental conditions would have changed so dramatically that your original goals might be completely irrelevant.

You can't validate success until it's too late. Here's a practical problem that eugenicists never address: how do you know if your program is working? The only true test would be if your "superior" humans lived full, healthy lives without genetic diseases.

Let's say you're breeding humans for longevity and health in old age. You'd need to wait 80-100 years to verify each generation's success. By the time you confirmed that Generation 1 lived longer, healthier lives, Generation 4 or 5 would already be born. If you discovered a problem, you'd have to start over with decades of work already invested.

The sample size problem is insurmountable. To effectively select for complex traits, you need enormous sample sizes. In cattle breeding, for example, artificial insemination allows a single bull to sire thousands of offspring, providing large enough samples to make statistically significant breeding decisions.

With humans? The most prolific reproducers might have 10-15 children. That's nowhere near enough to make statistically valid judgments about genetic quality. You'd need thousands of offspring per individual to make truly informed breeding decisions.

Here's where eugenics gets even more sinister. Throughout history, the people defining "superior" genes have, shockingly, always defined them in ways that favor themselves and people like them. What an amazing coincidence!

The people implementing eugenics exempt themselves. Let's be brutally honest. If a eugenics program were implemented today, do you think billionaires like Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos would be prevented from reproducing? Would Donald Trump be sterilized despite not matching anyone's definition of physical perfection?

Of course not. The wealthy and powerful would ensure the rules didn't apply to them. They never do. Look at the actual historical implementation of eugenics programs. They consistently targeted the vulnerable, not the powerful.

"Fitness" is defined by cultural bias, not biology. In the early 20th century, eugenicists in America targeted immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe, claiming they were genetically inferior to Northern Europeans. The evidence? They scored poorly on intelligence tests administered... in English, a language many of them didn't speak.

A 1917 study found that 83% of Jewish immigrants, 80% of Hungarians, and 79% of Italians were "feebleminded" based on these tests. Within a generation, with access to education and English language skills, these groups' scores normalized, proving the tests measured cultural knowledge and language skills, not innate intelligence.

Eugenic breeding creates aristocracy, not meritocracy. Look at what happens when humans actually try controlled breeding: royal families. For centuries, European royalty practiced their own form of selective breeding through strategic marriages meant to consolidate power and supposedly maintain "pure bloodlines."

The result? The widespread prevalence of hemophilia among European royalty and the infamous "Habsburg jaw," a facial deformity resulting from generations of inbreeding. By the time the Habsburg dynasty ended in Spain, King Charles II was so inbred he couldn't chew properly and failed to produce an heir despite two marriages.

Remember, this was supposed to be the genetic elite! Instead of creating superhuman monarchs, royal inbreeding produced physically diminished rulers who struggled with basic biological functions.

Eugenics isn't just a theoretical concept. It's been implemented multiple times, and the results have been uniformly catastrophic. Let's look at the actual data from historical eugenic programs:

United States Forced Sterilization Programs: Between 1907 and 1937, 32 states enacted compulsory sterilization laws targeting those deemed "unfit." By 1970, approximately 70,000 Americans were forcibly sterilized.

In North Carolina alone, 7,600 people were sterilized between 1929 and 1974. According to state records, 85% of the victims were female, 40% were minorities (despite minorities making up just 25% of the population), and 25% were under 18 years old, some as young as 10.

In Virginia, the victims were predominantly poor women, many of whom were simply labeled "promiscuous" or "feebleminded" based on subjective judgments by authorities. A follow-up study of those sterilized found that many had normal intelligence but lacked educational opportunities.

Nazi Germany's Aktion T4 Program: Before the Holocaust, Nazi Germany implemented a eugenics program that sterilized approximately 400,000 people deemed "genetically inferior" between 1933 and 1945.

This program directly evolved into Aktion T4, which murdered approximately 300,000 people with disabilities. The methods developed for killing the disabled were later applied to the Holocaust, which killed 6 million Jews and millions of others.

The connection between eugenics and the Holocaust isn't incidental. It's direct. As German historian Robert Proctor documented, 50% of German physicians joined the Nazi party, not because they were forced to, but because Nazi ideology aligned with eugenic ideas already popular in the medical community.

Sweden's "Racial Hygiene" Program: Between 1934 and 1976, Sweden sterilized about 63,000 people under a eugenic sterilization program. According to government records, 93% of the victims were women, and the primary targets were the "feebleminded," a category that included unwed mothers, promiscuous women, and those deemed "work-shy."

A 1999 government investigation found that many victims were sterilized simply for having "anti-social" lifestyles or being of mixed race. Some were explicitly told they would lose government benefits if they refused sterilization.

Japan's Eugenic Protection Law: Between 1948 and 1996, Japan sterilized approximately 16,500 people with disabilities without consent under the Eugenics Protection Law. According to government records released in 2019, victims as young as 9 years old were sterilized, and 70% of those sterilized were women.

The pattern is clear and consistent across countries and time periods: eugenics programs target the vulnerable, not the "objectively unfit" (whatever the fuck that means).

If you think eugenics is just a historical curiosity, think again. Modern forms of eugenic thinking persist, often disguised as public health initiatives or criminal justice reforms.

Prison Sterilizations: Between 2006 and 2010, approximately 150 women were sterilized without proper consent in California prisons. According to a state audit, prison officials specifically targeted women deemed likely to return to prison, with one doctor explicitly stating the goal was to prevent them from having more children who would become "wards of the state."

Immigration Detention: In 2020, a whistleblower alleged that women at an ICE detention center in Georgia were being subjected to unnecessary hysterectomies without proper informed consent. A follow-up investigation by the House of Representatives found "a pattern of misconduct" related to gynecological procedures performed on detainees.

Genetic Selection Technologies: With advances in genetic screening, we're seeing new, market-based forms of eugenics emerge. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis allows embryos to be screened for genetic conditions before implantation. While this can prevent suffering, it also raises questions about which conditions are considered severe enough to warrant selection.

In some countries, sex-selective abortion has led to significant demographic imbalances. In China, the sex ratio at birth reached 118 boys for every 100 girls in 2010 due to selective abortion of female fetuses, demonstrating how genetic selection technologies can reinforce existing social biases.

If eugenics isn't the answer to genetic disease and human suffering, what is? Here are some actual, evidence-based approaches that don't involve treating humans like livestock:

Universal healthcare access. Rather than trying to eliminate people with genetic conditions, how about ensuring everyone has access to the care they need? Revolutionary, I know. Countries with universal healthcare consistently show better health outcomes across populations, regardless of genetic background.

Voluntary genetic counseling and testing. Providing information and support to individuals and families about genetic conditions can help them make informed reproductive choices without coercion. Studies show that when people have access to genetic counseling, they make thoughtful, nuanced decisions based on their own values, not state-imposed standards.

Environmental improvements. Many health conditions are caused or exacerbated by environmental factors. Clean air, clean water, safe housing, and nutritious food would do more to improve human health than any eugenic program. Research consistently shows that environmental factors can override genetic predispositions in many cases.

Accommodations and accessibility. Instead of trying to eliminate disabilities, we could focus on making society accessible to everyone, regardless of ability. The social model of disability recognizes that many limitations come not from individuals' bodies or minds, but from environments designed without consideration for diverse needs.

Gene therapy targeting specific conditions. Rather than trying to breed "better" humans, we can develop treatments for specific genetic conditions. Unlike eugenics, gene therapy targets the disease, not the person, and respects individual autonomy.

I can already hear some people saying, "Well, these are just technical challenges we could overcome with enough time and technology." No. Absolutely not. This isn't a "it's hard but we could get there" situation. Eugenics fundamentally cannot work as advertised. It never has, and it never will. Let me break down exactly why:

First, there's no such thing as "optimal" human genetics because environmental conditions constantly change. The "perfect human" for today's world would be hopelessly maladapted 500 years from now. Evolution works because it maintains diversity, not because it optimizes for specific traits. A eugenics program that succeeded in creating genetically homogeneous humans would actually doom humanity to extinction when conditions inevitably change.

Second, eugenics is a solution in desperate search of a problem. Human genetic diversity isn't a flaw to be corrected; it's our species' greatest strength. Our different genetic makeups, abilities, and perspectives are what enable human innovation and adaptation. A world of genetically similar "optimal" humans would be stagnant, vulnerable, and ultimately doomed.

Third, even if we ignore the previous two points, any eugenics program powerful enough to "work" would require such total control over human reproduction that it would destroy the very freedoms that make life worth living. What's the point of creating "better" humans who live in reproductive slavery?

Fourth, every single time eugenics has been tried, it has immediately devolved into targeting vulnerable populations based on existing prejudices. It has never once been implemented based on actual genetic science, because the "science" of eugenics doesn't exist. It's just prejudice wearing a lab coat.

Finally, and this is the critical point: When people advocate for eugenics, they're not really advocating for better genetic science. They're advocating for a society where someone gets to decide whose lives are valuable and whose aren't. That's not a scientific position. That's a fascist one.

So no, eugenics isn't a difficult but worthwhile goal we should keep pursuing. It's a fundamentally broken concept based on a complete misunderstanding of genetics, evolution, human society, and ethical values. It belongs in the trash heap of history alongside phrenology, bloodletting, and the geocentric universe.

Anyone still advocating for eugenics in 2025 isn't showing their scientific sophistication. They're showing they don't understand basic genetics, haven't grappled with the horrific historical record, and haven't thought seriously about how selection criteria would actually work in practice.

And here's the most laughable part of the whole eugenics fantasy: Humans are already 100 percent dominant on this planet. There are nearly 8 billion of us. We've altered ecosystems worldwide, built cities in deserts, survived in space, and created technology that would look like magic to our ancestors. We don't need to do fucking anything to our genetics to put 100 billion humans on Earth if we wanted to.

The limiting factor for human success has never been our genetics. It's our social systems, resource distribution, and tendency to destroy ourselves. We are literally 1,000,000 billion percent more likely to wipe ourselves out with AI, nuclear weapons, climate change (again, when I say this, I literally mean dumping poison in rivers), or plain old war than we are to face any kind of genetic crisis that eugenics would supposedly solve.

Eugenicists are obsessing over imaginary genetic threats while ignoring the actual existential risks staring us in the face. It's like worrying about a paper cut when you're standing in the path of an oncoming train.

The real path forward isn't figuring out how to implement eugenics "correctly" or "ethically." It's investing in things that help everyone live better lives regardless of their genetic makeup.

Because ultimately, the problem with eugenics isn't just that it's impossible to implement without atrocities (though it is). It's that the entire premise is wrong from the ground up. And no amount of technological advancement will ever fix that fundamental flaw.

You just survived 5,000+ words of rage, receipts, and a data-driven evisceration of bad ideas. If that hit, resonated, or made you feel slightly more sane in a very dumb world, consider becoming a paid subscriber. It helps me keep writing pieces like this instead of blacking out from despair and yelling at strangers in parking lots. $5/month. Let's fight stupid with facts, together.