Thomas Malthus, centuries ago, promulgated a flawed theory that the resources of the earth are limited, thus ignoring the ability of mankind to address these limitations via the advancement of technology.
His theory is believed and relied on as gospel by the modern-day environmental movement. Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution also comes into play here, based on the tenet that only the strongest people will survive as humans are forced to compete for these scarce resources.
Ultimately, Malthusians and today’s hardcore enviros believe population control, i.e. limiting competition, is the ultimate solution to what ails the planet. When the perfect dark storm of Malthusians logically applying Darwin’s theory to humans engulfed humanity, the eugenics movement – the quest to perfect the human race by weeding out the weak – was born.
The most infamous proponent of the eugenics movement was Adolf Hitler. He believed that the Germans were part of a superior Aryan race, meaning that they were best fit to rule the world and that it was his duty to rid the world of all the “inferiors” no matter the cost.
To that end, he not only slaughtered Jews, but those he considered infirm. His infamy for genocide is well deserved, but of course Hitler died and his movement with him.
Not so for one Margaret Sanger, who founded Planned Parenthood.
Ms. Sanger’s primary mission? Reduce the breeding of minorities whom she considered inferior. Though Ms. Sanger has long been dead, the institution she started lives on, inflicting horrible consequences, on an international scale, including gendercide.
While Hitler and Ms. Sanger deserve the scorn of the ages, the permutations of the eugenics movement just keep coming our way. These permutations may, on the surface, appear to be harmless, but are anything but.
One of the most dangerous things for a man to do is to go jeans shopping with a woman – especially if the potential is there for her to ask the proverbial question, “do these jeans make me look fat?” Well, in this day of technological advancement, shoppers nowadays ask “do these genes make me look perfect?”
Hence, the story of two women partners who had the worst shopping day ever. They are now suing a sperm bank and the sperm donor for false advertising as it pertains to the quality of traits attributed to the donor.
The women were assured that the donor had an IQ of 160, an undergraduate degree in neuroscience, a master’s degree in artificial intelligence and he was pursuing a Ph.D in neuroscience engineering. He was eloquent, mature beyond his years and had an impressive health history.
At least that is how the ad read. It turns out, however, the sperm donor was a schizophrenic college dropout with a criminal record. Even worse, according to the lawsuit, the photo of the donor had been edited to remove a large mole on his cheek.
The mental illness and criminal record aside, why sue over a mole except in pursuit of the perfect baby?
First published in the Santa Barbara News Press.
The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Barb Wire.