Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Reproductive Ethics II pp 37–58Cite as

Creating a Higher Breed: Transhumanism and the Prophecy of Anglo-American Eugenics

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:

Abstract

How we assess current calls for vigorous, or “radical” (Agar 2010, 2014), enhancement through befitting procreative choices depends in part on the plausibility of supporters’ rejecting all substantive ties between their views and earlier eugenics. When denying such connections, today’s advocates of vigorous enhancement (i.e., transhumanists) routinely emphasize that enhancement decisions would stem from individuals and families, not the state. In a multipronged critique, I show the untenability of transhumanists’ denials.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Like Hauskeller (2012: 40), I use “transhumanists” as an umbrella term for current advocates of radical enhancement, who share the pertinent commitments, whether or not they apply that term to themselves.

  2. 2.

    Opponents’ likening of transhumanist advocacy to Nazi eugenics may be self-serving, too (Paul 2005: 142); in sum, “both critics and enthusiasts have (disparate) interests in constructing a history that identifies eugenics with brutal coercion” (142). Addressing the point about critics, though certainly important, falls outside my purview here.

  3. 3.

    Though I find the relationship more concerning than she does, I concur with Paul that the true backdrop for transhumanism is Anglo-American, not Nazi, eugenics (2007: 5–6; 2005: 125–126). Bearing on the point about levels of concern, perhaps, is that Paul (2007) features transhumans (5), reserving mention of posthumans, whose capacities would fundamentally surpass ours, for a footnote (15n1). Paul’s division suggests that they are detachable, with posthumans being the less directly relevant aspiration. For transhumanists themselves, however, the opposite is the case.

  4. 4.

    Extensive common ground exists within the Anglo-American tradition despite movement away from the racialism of so-called mainline eugenics that Osborn illustrates (1968: 11, 104–105). Discussing Anglo-American eugenics by stage, including how far racialism was truly set aside, falls outside my purview here.

  5. 5.

    It was C.W. Saleeby who, with Galton’s blessing, introduced the terms “positive” and “negative” eugenics (Kevles 1995: 321n1).

  6. 6.

    Haldane eventually retracted his support of positive eugenics (Paul 2005: 132, 143).

  7. 7.

    Judgments of positive and negative in the realm of emotion are distinct from “positive” and “negative” eugenics; notably, positive eugenics includes the augmentation of rationality. That said, they are closely related: on the one side, the tamping down of antisocial emotions falls under negative eugenics; on the other, the heightening of fellow feeling belongs to the positive variety.

  8. 8.

    Cf. Haldane’s “the old paradox of freedom” (48), which he resolves in favor of doing whatever is needed for human survival.

  9. 9.

    Since public health measures are occupied first and foremost with prevention, it may seem odd that transhumanists draw on public health justifications regarding cognitive enhancement. This argumentative strategy fits, however, with transhumanists’ denial of a legitimate conceptual distinction between treatment and enhancement (or, alternatively, per Parens’ [1998: 5] threefold division, among treatment, disease prevention [e.g., vaccinations], and enhancement).

  10. 10.

    A tendency to think in general terms about what is best is also evident in the currently shifting focus from “personalized” to “precision” medicine, which (via, e.g., its statistical bent) “represent[s] a significant departure from the individualistic ethos that initially facilitated public and political support for the genomic medicine movement” (Juengst et al. 2016: 22–23).

References

  • Agar N. Humanity’s end: why we should reject radical enhancement. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2010.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Agar N. Truly human enhancement: a philosophical defense of limits. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2014.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Allen GE. The Eugenics Record Office at Cold Spring Harbor, 1910-1940: an essay in institutional history. Osiris, 2nd series. 1986;2:225–64.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ascott R. Back to nature II: art and technology in the twenty-first century. In: More M, Vita-More N, editors. The transhumanist reader: classical and contemporary essays on the science, technology, and philosophy of the human future. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell; 2013. p. 438–48.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bailey R. For enhancing people. In: More M, Vita-More N, editors. The transhumanist reader: classical and contemporary essays on the science, technology, and philosophy of the human future. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell; 2013. p. 327–44.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bayertz K. GenEthics: technological intervention in human reproduction as a philosophical problem. Kirkby SL (trans). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blackford R. Editorial: Nietzsche and European posthumans. J Evol Technol. 2010;21(1):i–iii. http://jetpress.org/v21/blackford.pdf.

  • Bostrom N. Human genetic enhancements: a transhumanist perspective. J Value Inq. 2003a;37(4):493–506.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bostrom N. Transhumanist FAQ: a general introduction. Version 2.1. World Transhumanist Association. 2003b.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bostrom N. In defense of posthuman dignity. Bioethics. 2005a;19(3):202–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bostrom N. A history of transhumanist thought. J Evol Technol. 2005b;14(1). http://www.jetpress.org/volume14/bostrom.html.

  • Bostrom N. Why I want to be a posthuman when I grow up. In: Gordijn B, Chadwick R, editors. Medical enhancement and posthumanity. Dordrecht: Springer; 2008. p. 107–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bostrom N. Letter from utopia. Version 1.9. 2010. www.nickbostrom.com.

  • Bostrom N, Ord T. The reversal test: eliminating status quo bias in applied ethics. Ethics. 2006;116(4):656–79.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Brewer H. Eutelegenesis. Eugen Rev. 1935;27(2):121–6.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Broderick D. Trans and post. In: More M, Vita-More N, editors. The transhumanist reader: classical and contemporary essays on the science, technology, and philosophy of the human future. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell; 2013. p. 430–7.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Buchanan A. Enhancement and the ethics of development. Kennedy Inst Ethics J. 2008;18(1):1–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Burgers JH. Max Nordau, Madison Grant, and racialized theories of ideology. J Hist Ideas. 2011;72(1):139–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caplan AL, McGee G, Magnus D. What is immoral about eugenics? BMJ. 1999;319(7220):1284–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Chan S, Harris J. Cognitive regeneration or enhancement: the ethical issues. Regen Med. 2006;1(3):361–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chislenko A. Intelligent information filters and enhanced reality. In: More M, Vita-More N, editors. The transhumanist reader: classical and contemporary essays on the science, technology, and philosophy of the human future. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell; 2013. p. 138–45.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Comfort N. The science of human perfection: how genes became the heart of American medicine. New Haven: Yale University Press; 2012.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Daniels N. The genome project, individual differences, and just health care. In: Murphy TF, Lappé MA, editors. Justice and the human genome project. Berkeley: University of California Press; 1994. p. 110–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davenport CB. Eugenische Forschung und ihre praktische Anwendung in den Vereinigten Staaten. Erbarzt. 1936;29:97–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Grey A. The curate’s egg of anti-anti-aging bioethics. In: More M, Vita-More N, editors. The transhumanist reader: classical and contemporary essays on the science, technology, and philosophy of the human future. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell; 2013. p. 215–9.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Douglas T, Devolder K. Procreative altruism: beyond individualism in reproductive selection. J Med Philos. 2013;38(4):400–19.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Duster T. Backdoor to eugenics. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge; 2003.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Elster J. Procreative beneficence—cui bono? Bioethics. 2011;25(9):482–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Esposito M. Utopianism in the British evolutionary synthesis. Stud Hist Phil Biol Biomed Sci. 2011;42:40–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galton F. Eugenics: its definition, scope, and aims. Am J Sociol. 1904;10(1), July. Read before the Sociology Society at a meeting in the School of Economies (London University), 16 May 1904. http://galton.org/essays/1900-1911/galton-1904-am-journ-soc-eugenics-scope-aims.htm.

  • Haldane JBS. Possible worlds and other essays. London: Chatto & Windus; 1927.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haldane JBS. The inequality of man and other essays. London: Chatto & Windus; 1932.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haldane JBS. The causes of evolution. Ithaca: Cornell University Press; 1966 (first published 1932).

    Google Scholar 

  • Haldane JBS. Daedalus. In: Dronamraju KR, editor. Haldane’s “Daedalus” revisited. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1995. p. 23–51 (first published 1923).

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris J. Intimations of immortality: the ethics and justice of life-extending therapies. In: Freeman M, editor. Current Legal Problems, 2002, vol. 55. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2003. p. 65–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris J. Enhancing evolution: the ethical case for making better people. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 2010 (first published 2007).

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris J. Moral enhancement and freedom. Bioethics. 2011;25(2):102–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Harris J. How to be good: the possibility of moral enhancement. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2016.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Harris J, Holm S. Extending human lifespan and the precautionary paradox. J Med Philos. 2002;27(3):355–68.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hauskeller M. Reinventing Cockaigne: utopian themes in transhumanist thought. Hast Cent Rep. 2012;42(2):39–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holmes OWH. Buck v. Bell, 274 US 200. 1927. https://www.princeton.edu/~ereading/Buck%20v.%20Bell_%20Supreme%20Court%20Opinion.pdf.

  • Hughes J. Citizen cyborg: why democratic societies must respond to the redesigned human of the future. Cambridge, MA: Westview Press; 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hughes J. Transhumanism and personal identity. In: More M, Vita-More N, editors. The transhumanist reader: classical and contemporary essays on the science, technology, and philosophy of the human future. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell; 2013. p. 227–33.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Huxley JS. Eugenics and society. Eugen Rev. 1936;28(1):11–31.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Jefferson W, Douglas T, Kahane G, Savulescu J. Enhancement and civic virtue. Soc Theory Pract. 2014;40(3):499–527.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Jotterand F, Levin SB. Moral deficits, moral motivation and the feasibility of moral bioenhancement. Topoi: An International Review of Philosophy. 2017. Published online 8 April.

    Google Scholar 

  • Juengst E, McGowan ML, Fishman JR, Settersten RA Jr. From “personalized” to “precision” medicine: the ethical and social implications of rhetorical reform in genomic medicine. Hast Cent Rep. 2016;46(5):21–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kevles DJ. In the name of eugenics: genetics and the uses of human heredity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1995 (first published 1985).

    Google Scholar 

  • Kevles DJ. If you could design your baby’s genes, would you? Politico, 9 Dec. 2015. http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/12/crispr-gene-editing-213425.

  • Koch T. Enhancing who? Enhancing what? Ethics, bioethics, and transhumanism. J Med Philos. 2010;35(6):685–99.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kühl S. The Nazi connection: eugenics, American racism, and German National Socialism. New York: Oxford University Press; 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kurzweil R. The singularity is near: when humans transcend biology. New York: Penguin Books; 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laughlin HH. Eugenics in Germany: motion picture showing how Germany is presenting and attacking her problems in applied eugenics. Eugenical News. 1937;22(4):65–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levin SB. Transhumanism and enhancement. Chichester: eLS, John Wiley and Sons; 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levin SB. Upgrading discussions of cognitive enhancement. Neuroethics. 2016;9(1):53–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levin SB. Antiquity’s missive to transhumanism. J Med Philos. 2017;42(3):278–303.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Levy N. There may be costs to failing to enhance, as well as to enhancing. Am J Bioeth. 2013;13(7):38–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • McKibben B. Enough: staying human in an engineered age. New York: Henry Holt & Company; 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  • McMillan J. Conservative and critical morality in debate about reproductive technologies. In: Clarke S, Savulescu J, Coady CAJ, Giubilini A, Sanyal S, editors. The ethics of human enhancement: understanding the debate. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2016. p. 100–10.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Mehler B, Allen GE. Sources in the study of eugenics #1: inventory of the American Eugenics Society papers. The Mendel newsletter. 1977. Archival resources for the history of genetics & allied sciences, no. 14, June. http://ferris-pages.org/ISAR/archives2/sources/aes.htm.

  • Miah A. Justifying human enhancement: the accumulation of biocultural capital. In: More M, Vita-More N, editors. The transhumanist reader: classical and contemporary essays on the science, technology, and philosophy of the human future. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell; 2013. p. 291–301.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Minsky M. Why Freud was the first good AI theorist. In: More M, Vita-More N, editors. The transhumanist reader: classical and contemporary essays on the science, technology, and philosophy of the human future. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell; 2013. p. 167–76.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Moravec H. Mind children: the future of robot and human intelligence. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moravec H. Robot: mere machine to transcendent mind. New York: Oxford University Press; 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moravec H. Pigs in cyberspace. In: More M, Vita-More N, editors. The transhumanist reader: classical and contemporary essays on the science, technology, and philosophy of the human future. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell; 2013. p. 177–81.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • More M. A letter to mother nature. In: More M, Vita-More N, editors. The transhumanist reader: classical and contemporary essays on the science, technology, and philosophy of the human future. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell; 2013a. p. 449–50.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • More M. The philosophy of transhumanism. In: More M, Vita-More N, editors. The transhumanist reader: classical and contemporary essays on the science, technology, and philosophy of the human future. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell; 2013b. p. 3–17.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • More M. The proactionary principle: optimizing technological outcomes. In: More M, Vita-More N, editors. The transhumanist reader: classical and contemporary essays on the science, technology, and philosophy of the human future. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell; 2013c. p. 258–67.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • More M, Vita-More N, editors. The transhumanist reader: classical and contemporary essays on the science, technology, and philosophy of the human future. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell; 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  • Muller HJ. Out of the night: a biologist’s view of the future. New York: Garland Publishing; 1984 (first published 1935).

    Google Scholar 

  • Naam R. More than human: embracing the promise of biological enhancement. New York: Broadway Books; 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osborn F. Preface to eugenics. New York: Harper & Brothers; 1940.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osborn F. The future of human heredity: an introduction to eugenics in modern society. New York: Weybright & Talley; 1968.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parens E. Is better always good? The enhancement project. In: Parens E, editor. Enhancing human traits: ethical and social implications. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press; 1998. p. 1–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paul DB. Eugenic anxieties, social realities, and political choices. Soc Res. 1992;59(3):663–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paul DB. Genetic engineering and eugenics: the uses of history. In: Baillie HW, Casey TK, editors. Is human nature obsolete? Genetics, bioengineering, and the future of the human condition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2005. p. 123–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paul DB. On drawing lessons from the history of eugenics. In: Knowles LP, Kaebnick GE, editors. Reprogenetics: law, policy, and ethical issues. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press; 2007. p. 3–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pearson K. The ethic of freethought and other addresses and essays. 2nd ed, revised. London: Adam & Charles Black; 1901.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pence GE. How to build a better human: an ethical blueprint. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield; 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pernick MS. Eugenics and public health in American history. Am J Public Health. 1997;87(11):1767–72.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Persson I, Savulescu J. The perils of cognitive enhancement and the urgent imperative to enhance the moral character of humanity. J Appl Philos. 2008;25(3):162–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Persson I, Savulescu J. Unfit for the future: the need for moral enhancement. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2012.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Persson I, Savulescu J. Getting moral enhancement right: the desirability of moral bioenhancement. Bioethics. 2013;27(3):124–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Plato. Opera, vol. 3. Burnet J, editor. Oxford: Clarendon Press; 1903.

    Google Scholar 

  • Proctor RN. Racial hygiene: medicine under the Nazis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rubin CT. Eclipse of man: human extinction and the meaning of progress. New York: Encounter Books; 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  • Russell B. Icarus, or the future of science. New York: E P Dutton; 1924.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sahu S. A CRISPR view of life. The neuroethics blog, hosted by the Center for Ethics, Neuroethics Program at Emory University, 10 Jan. 2017. http://www.theneuroethicsblog.com/2017/01/a-crispr-view-of-life_10.html.

  • Sandberg A. Morphological freedom—why we not just want it, but need it. In: More M, Vita-More N, editors. The transhumanist reader: classical and contemporary essays on the science, technology, and philosophy of the human future. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell; 2013. p. 56–64.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Savulescu J. New breeds of humans: the moral obligation to enhance. Ethics Law Moral Philos Reprod Biomed. 2005;1(1):36–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Savulescu J. Making better babies: pro and con. Monash Bioeth Rev. 2013;31(1):36–59. Based on a public debate with R Sparrow, presented by the Monash University Centre for Human Bioethics, 2 Oct 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  • Savulescu J, Kahane G. The moral obligation to create children with the best chance of the best life. Bioethics. 2009;23(5):274–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Savulescu J, Persson I. Moral enhancement, freedom, and the God Machine. Monist. 2012;95(3):399–421.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Schaefer GO, Kahane G, Savulescu J. Autonomy and enhancement. Neuroethics. 2014;7(2):123–36.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Silver LM. Remaking Eden: how genetic engineering and cloning will transform the American family. New York: Ecco/HarperCollins; 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smart JJC. An outline of a system of utilitarian ethics. In: Smart JJC, Williams B. Utilitarianism: for and against. New York: Cambridge University Press; 1973. p. 3–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sparrow R. A not-so-new eugenics: Harris and Savulescu on human enhancement. Hast Cent Rep. 2011;41(1):32–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sparrow R. Primary topic article: ethics, eugenics, and politics. In: Akabayashi A, editor. The future of bioethics: international dialogues. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2014a. p. 139–53.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Sparrow R. Response to commentaries: the real force of “procreative beneficence”. In: Akabayashi A, editor. The future of bioethics: international dialogues. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2014b. p. 183–92.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Stock G. Metaman: the merging of humans and machines into a global superorganism. New York: Simon & Schuster; 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stock G. Redesigning humans: choosing our genes, changing our future. Boston: Mariner Books/Houghton Mifflin; 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stock G. The battle for the future. In: More M, Vita-More N, editors. The transhumanist reader: classical and contemporary essays on the science, technology, and philosophy of the human future. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell; 2013. p. 302–16.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Transhumanist Declaration. Modified by several unnamed organizations and individuals, 2012. In: More M, Vita-More N, editors. The transhumanist reader: classical and contemporary essays on the science, technology, and philosophy of the human future. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell; 2013. p. 54–5. Original Transhumanist Declaration (1998) authored by Chislenko AS, Sandberg A, Kamphuis A, Staring B, Fantegrossi B, Reynolds D, Pearce D, Otter D, Bailey D, Leitl E, Alves G, Wagner H, Aegis K, Elis K, Crocker LD, More M, Sverdlov M, Vita-More N, Bostrom N, Fletcher R, Spaulding S, Morrow TO, Quinn T.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vita-More N. Aesthetics: bringing the arts & design into the discussion of transhumanism. In: More M, Vita-More N, editors. The transhumanist reader: classical and contemporary essays on the science, technology, and philosophy of the human future. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell; 2013a. p. 18–27.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Vita-More N. Life expansion media. In: More M, Vita-More N, editors. The transhumanist reader: classical and contemporary essays on the science, technology, and philosophy of the human future. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell; 2013b. p. 73–82.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Walker MA. Prolegomena to any future philosophy. J Evol Technol. 2002;10, Mar. http://www.jetpress.org/volume10/prolegomena.html.

  • Wikler D. Can we learn from eugenics? J Med Ethics. 1999;25:183–94.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Williams B. A critique of utilitarianism. In: Smart JJC, Williams B, editors. Utilitarianism: for and against. New York: Cambridge University Press; 1973. p. 77–150.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood D. Responding to the call for a new Humanity+ manifesto, 4 Feb. 2013. https://dw2blog.com/2013/02/04/responding-to-the-call-for-a-new-humanity-manifesto/.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Smith College, Northampton, MA, USA

    Susan B. Levin

Authors
  1. Susan B. Levin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Susan B. Levin .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Alden March Bioethics Institute, Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Albany Medical College, Albany, New York, USA

    Lisa Campo-Engelstein

  2. Alden March Bioethics Institute, Program Director of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Wellspan York Hospital, York, Pennsylvania, USA

    Paul Burcher

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Levin, S.B. (2018). Creating a Higher Breed: Transhumanism and the Prophecy of Anglo-American Eugenics. In: Campo-Engelstein, L., Burcher, P. (eds) Reproductive Ethics II. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-89429-4_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-89429-4_4

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-89428-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-89429-4

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation