People are currently focusing on Trump and his silly comments, but perhaps they should be focussing on Britain.
A few days ago, British newspaper The Guardian reported about a eugenics meeting that allegedly had been convened in secret, involving someone who has previously advocated child rape. This meeting is supposed to have taken place at University College London and white supremacists supposedly were present at this meeting.
Britain is already purging foreigners and as of roughly 2012 (when Theresa May led the Home Office), has been deliberately creating an increasingly hostile environment for foreigners. The British Home Office has also made clear that it cares little about people’s rights or even about what British courts order it to do. (Many people seem unaware of the large gap between what Theresa May says in public speeches and what she actually does in practice.)
But make no mistake: the British government also considers at least a quarter of its own population as roughly on a par with a rotted banana peel.
I suspect that a large proportion of the British do not vote because a) they believe that they are powerless and that their votes won’t matter and b) they believe that registering to vote will expose them to collection agencies, cold callers and so on hounding them. Why else would abusive governments get voted into power over and over again?
Anyway, I can’t do a thing about that.
I can try to do something about the application of eugenics, however. We urgently need to come up with a global guideline for the application of eugenics. I propose one in the slides below.
Notice that I am running into a conflict here. What about abortion? I could say that we can assign the right not to be discriminated against to zygotes, embryos etc but not the right to life yet. This could create a bridge to current practice (also with a view to the reality that we will stop growing babies in utero in the future).
As I am a feminist, I have to ask myself if I am then assigning the right to life when it suits me and denying it when that right doesn’t suit me.
I am clear about the fact that if we do allow abortion, it must be non-discriminatory. (I think that allowing discrimination in some instances encourages it in other instances.)
I haven’t been able to disentangle women’s rights from the rights of tiny fetuses yet in a way that puts my own preferences to the side and results in a robust principle.
I am hoping that technological developments will overtake me soon and render this point moot, but I will attempt to come up with an idea that can work in the interim. (It’s a good bioethics exercise.)
When I use “enable” with regard to lives “not worth living” in the slides above, I mean it in the sense of enabling someone to flourish and live without constant excessive pain, for example.