Extinctionof the SocialDarwinismCanard 243basiswouldbe bigoted,but that wouldnot be reasonenoughto spoliatethe persondoing
the shunning.Whatthe law trulyneedsto recognizeis thateveryPureCitizenhas the
sameLockeanmoralrights.Thisis regardlessof whetheror not someonepossessesany
geneticenhancements,or whetheror not he is the resultof reproductivehumancloning.
It was no doubtmonstrousfor governisteugeniciststo try to altersociety’s overallgenetic
makeupby lobbyingthe Stateto spoliatepeacefulindividuals.But it wouldalsobe evil
for anti-eugeniciststo lobbythe Stateto spoliatereprogeneticistswhohaveexercised
peacefulmethodsto modifysociety’s overallgeneticmakeup.In answerto thosewho
wishto criminalizeconsensualreprogenetics,MattRidleywritesthatif the Statebarred
the optionof humanenhancement,thatprohibition“wouldriskincreasingthe loadof
sufferingin the world.. .” In his perspective,it wouldbe “just as cruelto outlaw” the
practice“as it wouldbe to makeit compulsory.It is an individualdecision,not one that
can be bestleft” to the government.WhereasLockeanreprogenetics“is aboutgiving
privateindividualsprivatechoiceson privatecriteria,” governisteugenics“wasabout
nationalisingthatdecisionto makepeoplebreednot for themselvesbut for the state.It is
a distinctionfrequentlyoverlooked” by suchpoliticalcollectivistsas EdwinBlack“in the
rushto definewhat‘we’ mustallowin the newgeneticworld.Whois ‘we’? We as
individuals,or we as the collectiveinterestof the stateor the race?”^62
JamesWatsoncorrectlyevaluatesthatwhatthe governisteugenicistsand anti-biotech
governistshavein commonis theirdesireto legislateoverotherpeople’s privatedeci-
sionson howtheymaypeaceablyprocreate.In defianceto eachof thosespoliativeposi-
tions,the Lockeanapproachupholdsthe sanctityof individualfreedomagainstany
brandof governism.Whenit comesto choosingbetweenwhatthe governistscall the
commongoodversusthe rightsof the individual,Watsondecides,“My wayis always
asking,‘What’s goodfor the individual?’... It’s bestto let parentsdecide” whetherthey
wantto utilizereprogenetictechniquesor not, and to whatextent.^63
The opinionsof Ridleyand Watsonreceiveaffirmationin thatof economicsjournalist
VirginiaPostrel,whorecognizesthe equivocationbetweenNaziismand Lockeanreprog-
eneticsto be “bothridiculousand,quitefrankly,morallyoffensive.TheNazismarched
peopleintodeathcamps.Theymurderedpeople” (emphasishers).Nazieugenics“wasa
state-runprogramto createone modelfor the perfectGermanto be subordinatedto the
State.” On the converse,Lockeanreprogeneticsentails“lettingindividualparentsmake
decisionson behalfof the children” for whomthey“loveandcare... Andto compare
thatto Nazisis disgusting.”^64 As RobertL. Sinsheimer,a biologistand chancelloremeri-
tus at the Universityof Californiaat SantaCruz,articulatesit, the old government-regula-
tory“eugenicswouldhaverequireda continuedselectionof breedingof the fit, anda
cullingof the unfit.” On the otherhand,the newconsensualist“eugenicswouldpermitin
principlethe conversionof all the unfitto the highestgeneticlevel.”^65 ThomasR. DeGre-
goriasksthe pertinentquestion.“Whoare less like the Nazis—... geneticengineers,or
thosewhowouldstraightjacketsuchsciences?”^66 Far fromthe individualparentsem-
ployinggermlinegeneticengineeringbeingakinto Nazis,it is thosewhowouldhavethe
Statebanthispracticewhoare exercisingthe forceof lawto dictateoverwhatother
peoplemayor maynot peaceablydo withtheirownDNA.SoniaArrison,the founderof
a thinktankcalledSingularityUniversity,pointsout that it is “present-dayopponents” of
germlinegeneticenhancementwho“wantto use the powerof governmentto forcepeo-
ple intocertaingeneticcategories.Theauthoritarianismthatwasonceassociatedwith
racismand sterilizationcan nowbe associatedwiththoseproppingup the statusquo.”^67
InventorandformerMicrosoftsoftwareengineerRamezNaamadds,“It’s thosewho
opposeindividualand familygeneticchoicewhohave,in essence,decidedthatthere’s a
certain‘correct’ geneticheritagefor humanity(theonewe havetoday)andthatthe
populaceshouldnot be allowedany choicein the matter.”^68