by Vittorio P. Cuneo-Flood

I will begin with the premise. Then, with painstaking care, I will draw out some conclusions. I hope that you disagree with the conclusions; I’m sure you’ll be shocked by some. But then, why? Is it because the premise is wrong, or because the argumentation is flawed? At what point?  You will not find an answer from me; you will have to think for yourself …

Evolution

Humans are the result of millions of years of evolution. For a time, there was no life. Yet through certain conditions, life of the most basic kind came to being. This life began in the waters, and by mutating, by the quality of the atmosphere and through random events, came onto land. Recently, there has existed some type of early monkey species, now extinct, which in turn produced Homo sapiens – us. The obvious question of who are the least evolved has been answered: scientists have found that all human DNA can be traced back to one couple in relatively recent history.

The process of evolution (at our stage at least) happens due to a mutation in the gene of the species. The gene might make you slightly faster, your children might be slightly faster still, maybe they’ll get a mutation which makes them larger; but a cousin of yours received a mutation which made him slower, but then, he needs less food. After hundreds and thousands of years these mutations compound, and others are added. The result is the extinction of some species; they may have been preyed upon, or not have pounced upon enough prey, or perhaps a catastrophic disaster took place.

We can see, from observation, that certain animals have traits which are conducive to survival. The cheetah’s speed catches prey, but the stripes of the zebra, when in a pack, disorientates the cheetah, and so the opportunity of escape remains – there is a sort of balance. The turtle has her shell. The chameleon her colours. The crocodile his bite. The human has no such physical benefit, the thing which keeps us alive is our mind, our brain, our consciousness, our ability to make tools. These tools allow us to do things which other animals can do with their body; but a cheetah cannot be both fast and have a shell, yet the mind of man can create both the car and the cottage; in this sense, we are superior to other animals.

Eugenics

The process of evolution is random, but we have begun tinkering. The food we eat, I’m sure you know, isn’t exactly natural. The seeds which produced stout crops were kept, the chickens which hatched large eggs were packed in a coop, and the bitch which produced weak puppies was butchered. But not just packed; bred. Bred at a speed which makes rabbits blush. This is the first instance of eugenics, and it has made life better – undoubtedly so.

Now, I say tinkering and I say natural, but no other animal could ‘tinker’, they are not wise, sapiens, like us. And since it is our very mind which has kept us alive, to then say we shouldn’t tinker, that is, to use our minds which is our speed, and is our shell, and is our camouflage, is to not grasp evolution. Can we criticise the wolves who first began to run in a pack, or neglect the runt of the litter? Anyway, where has the notion of ‘should’ entered? Maybe it could be argued that a system of ethics, involving the idea of ‘should’, has evolved in order to keep peace, which serves man’s existence; but it cannot be argued that we can’t then sacrifice ethics, if what we’re sacrificing it for will serve man’s existence more effectively.

Now it follows that humans can both better their life conditions and indeed exacerbate the process of evolution, i.e, increase the rate of change of our change; at least, this is what the original evolutionists thought. The sub-title of Darwin’s Origin of Species is ‘Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life’. His cousin, Galton, founder of the ‘Eugenics Education Society’, then (1924) ‘The Eugenics Society’, then (1989) ‘The Galton Institute, then (2021) ‘Adelphi Genetics Forum’, coined the term ‘eugenics’ as ‘the science which deals with all influences which improve the inborn qualities of a race; also with those which develop them to the utmost advantage’.

Now, why were these people in favour of eugenics? Overpopulation. The threat to the existence of man which needs to be countered. The plan of attack is simple: if the population is too big, lower the population. In fact, it doesn’t even matter if it’s actually too big, you can simply lower it if you want to, after all, the law of the jungle is survival of the fittest.

Euthanasia

So, to recap: humans are the product of evolution. Our mind is the product of evolution. We want to survive, we want life to be better (well, we certainly don’t want to die), so we should use both eugenics on animals, and on ourselves to achieve this – indeed, this idea grew with the rise of evolution.

We must then dwell on the best methods of eugenics, and comment on their merits. Now, if the methods were openly coercive, then people would resist them – not a plan. Therefore, the best eugenic programme will be that which is non-coercive, or rather, the person should feel as though they are not coerced, for the aim is non-resistance; still better, is the programme which seems positively attractive, for then the results will be speedier.

For all of these measures, the beauty is that they seem attractive, thus the human programme of eugenics happens willingly:

• Sterilisation, contraception, abortion – ‘choice’ is the key word.
• Transgenderism, homosexuality – this means no children. We must, however, heavily encourage such measures as IVF, adoption, and the like, for these create the appearance of a traditional family, satiate the desire for children, and then we can’t be accused of trying to lower the population. People may be against this if it’s openly encouraged – ‘accepted’ is the key word.
• Prostitution (though pornography is better)
• Women in the workplace – if women are working, they can’t look after many children, and thus this will cap the number of children in families. ‘Equality’ is the key word here.
• Travel, over-working, distraction – similar reasons.
• University – to persuade young children to live a certain way is defective for two reasons: firstly, someone else may remove the seed you’ve planted; secondly, their minds can only handle simple thoughts. Nevertheless, filling the nursery with books which begin ‘A million years ago …’ is fantastic. So, if we make university universal, then most of the population can have at least three years where they can be persuaded with evolutionary and eugenic principles. These never need to be explicit, nor thrusted upon – in fact it’s better if they’re not. 
• Religion – though false, we should praise tolerance and respect customs, for if we allow people to keep their exterior customs they won’t be as alert to the changing of their thoughts. If someone thinks they are resisting, but aren’t, that’s fab. Indeed, a Church which softly attacks us is better than no Church at all. 
• War, veganism, pessimism, antidepressants, anthropomorphic (meaning ‘caused by humans’, for the climate is always changing, obviously) climate change – the goal here is fear. If we can get people thinking ‘I don’t want to raise children in such a bad world’, then we’ve obtained a huge victory, and for such a person to be labelled as moral and selfless is the cherry on top. These measures have the added benefit of being expensive (e.g. taxes, buying foreign food), which can only lower the standard of living for those who are poor, whilst having no effect on the rich.
• Incel movement – important, that those who might give resistance have a conducive outlet.
• Pesticides, urbanism, radiation exposure, microplastics, overworking – killing people is effective, so long as they don’t know; a long time-frame is helpful. Even better if they’re the cause of their own destruction. 
• Euthanasia – death duly done.

For anyone who would like to know more about population control measures, Stanley Johnson’s Life Without Birth: A Journey Through the Third World in Search of Population Explosion is recommended.

Excerpt: ‘I shall not discuss at length the arsenal of devices which the modern state has at its disposal for this purpose [i.e. reducing population].’