Social Darwinism allows for human progress. Herbert Spencer argues mankind has an innate desire to move towards “individuation.” People compete for jobs, look to move up in social classes, and defend their lives when threatened. This individuation, which is a product of self-interest and survival of the fittest, creates progress and growth. Although there would be progress in the allowance of genetic engineering, that progress would ultimately be stopped through the destruction of Social Darwinism.
To prohibit genetic engineering would be to prohibit progress, but only in the sense that the progress of genetic engineering would be stopped. The evolution of mankind and, therefore, the evolution of technology and national governments would continue. However, these progressions would ultimately be halted in the allowance of genetic engineering. Social Darwinism, as developed by Spencer, states “that the transformation of the homogeneous into the heterogeneous, is that in which Progress essentially consists…” (Spencer). Mankind develops from the simple to the complex. Numerous ethnicities, religions, governments, and social classes have been created throughout the history of the Earth. Genetically engineering embryos, whether it be screening for disease, designing physical traits, or choosing intelligence and strength, would stop this development. The characteristics of humans would be chosen for them. Their successes in life (lifespan, income, intelligence) would no longer be a result of perseverance or drive. Instead humans would not strive for a higher level of progress because they have already been genetically engineered to be at the highest level.
As seen in Brave New World, the world population has been genetically engineered and conditioned. There is no movement from the homogeneous to the heterogeneous because there is no progressive movement at all. Social Darwinism has been destroyed through the removal of individuation. As Henry Foster explains, “We also predestine and condition. We decant our babies as socialized human being, as Alphas or Epsilons, as future sewage workers” (Huxley 13). Humans of the New World do not strive for more because they cannot. Epsilons are denied oxygen as embryos; freemartins are made sterile, and rocket-plane engineers are created to only enjoy being upside down. They have been denied the freedom to chose their own future life styles. The destruction of Social Darwinism in the Brave New World is due largely to genetic engineering.
Social Darwinism also includes class structure. It is assumed that “the mass of the community has become segregated into distinct classes and orders of workers” (Spencer). It can be argued, therefore, that the Brave New World keeps with Social Darwinism in its divisions of Alphas, Betas, Gammas, and Epsilons. However, this segregation is artificial. A primary component of Social Darwinism is the limited influence of institutions, such as government, on individual lives. “For human beings to flourish and develop, Spencer held that there must be as few artificial restrictions as possible, and it is primarily freedom that he…saw as promoting human happiness” (Sweet). The Brave New World government creates these divisions through genetic engineering and conditioning. By predetermining the lives of its citizens, it is not only imposing major restrictions on the freedom of individuals but it is also stopping progress. Genetic engineering, today, would also produce major restrictions on human life. Parents or government could control an individual’s life before he or she is even born. By controlling the genes of a human, an artificial life is created and the future progress of that individual could be prohibited.
While genetic engineering allows for progress, the results of such progress would cause the destruction of Social Darwinism and overall growth. And with the destruction of Social Darwinism and growth, human freedom, the source of happiness, would also be destroyed. The benefit in the allowance of the progress from genetic engineering does not override the negative elimination of societal growth. It is necessary to stop the progress of one event to save the progress of mankind.
Works Cited
Huxley, Aldous. Brave New World. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2006.
Spencer, Herbert. "Herbert Spencer: Social Darwinism, 1857." Modern History Sourcebook. 7 Mar. 2008
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/spencer-darwin.html.
Sweet, William. "Herbert Spencer (1820-1903)." The Internet Encylopedia of Philosophy. 7 Mar. 2008
. http://www.iep.utm.edu/s/spencer.htm.
