"Future Human Evolution" book review

I just finished reading “Future Human Evolution” by Prof. John Glad. I learned long ago to avoid taking the titles and accomplishments we find on dust jackets too seriously. This is because of the tremendous amount of rubbish we are served by “illustrious professors” with impressive-sounding titles and long lists of books and papers to their names. I’ve learned that a university degree does not bestow its owner with common sense, nor does it cleanse him of hidden agendas such as the defense of dogma or the will to further his career, truth be damned.
But Future Human Evolution has no such agenda, unless one considers battling for the truth, and the preservation of our species an “agenda.” Therefore I’ll quote the dust jacket:

John Glad is a retired professor of Russian studies, having taught at Rutgers University, the University of Chicago, the University of Iowa, and the University of Maryland. He is also the former Director of the Kennan Institute for Advanced Russian Studies in the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, in Washington, D.C. A Guggenheim grant recipient, he is the author, editor, or translator of twenty books, some of which have been honored in the American Book Awards. Future Human Evolution is part of his long-standing work on behalf of human rights, in this case of future generations.

And this brings me to a critical concept in eugenics, which Prof. Glad makes perfectly clear in his book: That future generations have rights. This is a point that I myself expounded upon in the first post of this blog, Reflections of a “Racist” Father. We take the view that human society includes not only those who are alive today, but also those who are yet to be born. When we consider how much we owe to the sacrifices of our ancestors, our generation should certainly appreciate this position. As beneficiaries of previous generations, we should be eager to bestow similar benefits upon future generations.
Glad points out that, although there are racial differences (in general terms), eugenics is race-neutral. Whatever traits we wish to promote in one race, we wish to promote in other races as well. All races stand to benefit from eugenics – and all races stand to suffer from dysgenic policies.
One of the most important services Prof. Glad offers us in his book is that he gives historical context to the eugenics movement and exposes the supposed link between Nazism and eugenics as a myth – a myth that has been promoted by certain forces on the left. Nazism had nothing to do with eugenics. On the contrary, Nazi policies were dysgenic to the extreme. Any “eugenic” policies followed by the Nazis were also followed by their enemies in the U.S. and Europe at the time. Glad points out that Hitler’s euthanasia campaign was not eugenic in nature, but rather a crude way to free up hospital beds for the large numbers of expected war casualties. Glad also devotes a chapter to the contributions of Jews to the eugenics movement – a subject to which he later devoted an entire book, Jewish Eugenics.
Prof. Glad explains that, contrary to common belief, the eugenics movement was not an offshoot of a wider discipline of genetics. On the contrary. The science of genetics was an offshoot of eugenics. Not only that, but the eugenics movement has been very much alive and kicking right up to the present time. Several surveys of published books on eugenics, through the years, backs this up.
Perhaps most importantly of all, Prof. Glad offers practical advice as to what eugenic policies we should pursue. For example (pg. 97):

Welfare policies need to be radically reexamined. Rather than simply pay low-IQ women more for each child, financial support should be made dependent on consent to undergo sterilization. Society should put more emphasis on greater tax credits for families with children, nurseries, day-care centers, etc. This would promote fertility among high-IQ women, who otherwise are tempted to either not to have children at all, or to have too few, sacrificing their unborn children before the alter of career advancement. The goals of the feminist movement are in and of themselves legitimate and fair, but wed to the anti-scientific worldview of radical egalitarianism, they will devastate our species.

Glad’s suggestion regarding sterilization of welfare recipients echoes that of Jared Taylor in his book Paved with Good Intentions.
Though Future Human Evolution is available online for free here, it should be noted that this is an abridged (and revised) version of the printed edition.

This entry was posted in book/movie/video reviews and links. Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to "Future Human Evolution" book review

  1. Instead of the government sterilizing welfare recipients why not just not provide government funded welfare? The problem isn’t improper state intervention, the problem is state intervention. When there is no welfare programs and people can keep the money they make the result is is that smart people in general have more kids. You don’t need to have eugenicists in order to improve the gene pool. All you have to do is dismantle the welfare state.

    • aisaac says:

      If we got rid of the welfare system, we would have lots of desperately poor people starving in the streets, and causing trouble with their desperation. You may not have a problem with that, but some people do.

    • Georgia Resident says:

      It’s not practical to get rid of the welfare state in the current political environment. To say nothing of the opposition of races that are net beneficiaries of welfare, most Whites would not have the stomach for a cold cutoff of benefits. Ironically, since Whites are the most likely race to engage in voluntary charitable giving, we would probably end up shouldering an even more disproportionate share of the cost of caring for the poor of all races.
      At least under the current system, rich Asians, Hispanics, and Blacks have to pay part of the upkeep of their own underclass. Without compulsory taxation, most of them would happily contribute no more than they currently do to charity, while many whites would dramatically increase their contribution as they were regaled with stories of the miseries faced by welfare dependents forced off the dole.

  2. Douglas says:

    Initially we would have starving people in the streets if welfare is dramatically curtailed. It could be slowed in graduated measures which, due to the existing American financial situation, may happen anyway. Churches could do what they are supposed to do and fill in the gap or have their tax exempt status taken away something they have sold their right to free speech to obtain, but that is another topic.
    I have recently begun to look at this problem, especially as it relates to Africa, entirely different from my church. By continually pumping money to people who are e capable of managing even their own lives far from helping them, we are perpetuating the suffering into future generations and larger populations.
    My biggest concern is, who will decide whose genetic material to pass along?
    Day care is another topic, but if we truley care for the future generation we will have two parent families with a stay at home mom, at least in the early formative years,

  3. I do not accept that tax paying citizens should be cuckolded into providing money for raising kids who they did not produce. Has anyone here heard of freeganism? Freeganists are people who survive off of trash that is thrown out by restaurants and grocery stores. We produce so much waste that people in America can live fine off of trash. A while ago I spent a year living as a freegan. People who need food can eat out of the trash if they need to eat. There is plenty of food in the trash for them. Also they can eat by using private charities like church soup kitchens.

  4. CanSpeccy says:

    For more than 500 years, those in England unable to support themselves were given segregated accommodation in the workhouse, a public institution where they were engaged for ten hours a day, six days a week in various kinds of work, including breaking stones and picking oakum, whatever that may be. This limited the reproductive success of the economically unproductive.
    This harsh but sensible arrangement was finally abandoned in 1948. But we are unlikely to see a return to it. The present thinking being that the trash are best (a) fed with crumbs from the bankers tables, and (b) indoctrinated in every form of non-reproductive sex, while more competent people from elsewhere are recruited through immigration to provide whatever labor is required in a decreasingly labor-intensive economy.
    Thus the long-term goal is to genocide most of the indigenous people, while creating a labor force of energetic and competitive Third Worlders relatively willing, if necessary, to work for minimum wage — or less in the underground economy, and free of tiresome ideas about human/Constitutional rights.
    The UK Ministry of Defense has produced a report which notes that as the Asian powers rise, it will serve Britain well to have a largely non-white, i.e., Asian, population.

  5. Jim in VA says:

    I predict that someday a technological solution will be found to rid society of the undeserving. Read undeserving as urbanites and virtually all 3rd world countries and entire continents such as Central and South America, all of Africa and a vast majority of Asia. This ‘Solution”…I know, it’s a naughty term to use…will come from a scientific development of sterilization introduced into food and drinking supplies. A type of nano-bioharbinger that can lay dormant and become activated thus eliminating a population in one complete generation. It will be a weapon developed by the authorities of a Presidential Finding…look this up as it authorizes just about anything out of the eyes of Congress. I work in this field in weapons development by Presidential Finding in Arlington, VA and though highly classified by 2 word names, the existing downwind streams of technology would scare the daylights out of even the seasoned warrior or member of Congress. All Congress sees is the 2 word naming convention and the dollar amount. WHere do I see this happening? A joint project between DoD and one of the numerous labs that we use such as Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Lab, etc, etc. The technology already exists and the emplacement can be readily coordinated. An administration just has to have the will to do it. By the way, these classified elements are all shared with selected allies and not all of NATO either. This is the new nuclear weapon and this is 1945 revisited.

  6. Pingback: Randoms « Foseti

  7. AK says:

    And this brings me to a critical concept in eugenics, which Prof. Glad makes perfectly clear in his book: That future generations have rights. This is a point that I myself expounded upon in the first post of this blog, Reflections of a “Racist” Father.

    I just read your first article. (Well, part of it; that stuff is known to me anyway, so I skimmed most of it). I don’t envy your dilemma!
    Out of curiosity, did you end up persuading your daughter?
    (Obviously I understand if you don’t want to answer this).

  8. Californian says:

    Hard stuff here, but the topic does need to be discussed. The origins of the American welfare state can be attributed to the New Deal (1930s) insofar as there was a federal effort. But it was a different sort of poverty because we were talking about the working-middle class which were out in the streets. The objective was to maintain a healthy working class through the down cycles of a capitalist economy. The idea was that when work would become available, people would go back to work! Also, Social Security was there to get older workers off of the assembly lines to free up jobs for younger workers.
    The big change came with the welfare state of the 1960s. The objective was (in theory) to end poverty. But as we have seen, it really cemented the culture of poverty in place by subsidizing dysfunctional behaviors. Then we toss in globalization, which undercuts working class wages and American working class culture. Welfare now becomes a means to maintain superfluous populations.
    There have been several attempts to end welfare. But you run up against the politics of too many people dependent on the system. As the saying goes, there are three types of people: makers, takers and fakers–with the takers and fakers outvoting the makers.
    Be interesting to see the long term outcomes here. Inner cities are becoming increasingly ungovernable. Some cities, such as Detroit, are lost to American civilization. And we have elites promoting third world immigration/outsourcing policies which result in the displacement of the white working class demographic. And things do appear to be getting dumber, if we judge the demagoguery which has replaced elections and the obsession with media spectacles. If one were into conspiracy theory, one might think this is the planned outcome.
    The thing that is disturbing is that maybe those eugenicists may have had a point. The dilemma is, eugenics is such a touchy subject I doubt if it can be discussed intelligently these decadent days.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *