Eugenics and Contemporary Health Discourse

The concept of eugenics, which originated with English polymath Francis Galton in 1883, is rooted in ideas derived from animal breeding. He advocated for the reproduction of individuals exhibiting “desirable” traits while discouraging or preventing procreation among those deemed “undesirable.” Galton’s views led to the establishment of a racial hierarchy, placing white Europeans at its apex.

Eugenics has manifested in various, often tragic forms throughout history. Genocides and forced sterilizations are some of the most notorious outcomes. However, the 20th century also saw the emergence of “soft eugenics,” which entails non-coercive approaches to reducing certain health conditions via individual choices and medical guidance. Nancy Stepan’s 1991 book, *The Hour of Eugenics*, popularized this notion, highlighting indirect influences such as education and environmental factors as opposed to direct biological interventions like sterilization. The conversation now extends to genetic technologies, prenatal screenings, and physical fitness.

Then there’s Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the US Health Secretary, who frequently reflects on the past, lamenting that issues like diabetes and autism were rare in his youth. In campaign materials, he often uses nostalgic imagery of white families enjoying the beach. He promotes a return to a more natural lifestyle, free from what he calls “poisonous” additives, fertilizers, cooking oils, and even vaccines, labeling them the most harmful of all.

This narrow focus on personal responsibility as the primary determinant of health presents a troubling perspective. By neglecting to discuss factors like education, socioeconomic status, and social support—elements that public health experts recognize as critical—Kennedy appears to practice a form of soft eugenics.

He is not alone in this approach. Within the Trump administration, there seems to be a growing obsession with shaping the genetic landscape of the population. Cuts to foreign aid under Musk’s initiatives have led to rising child mortality rates and increased cases of diseases like malaria and HIV in Africa, while policy engagements have included offering asylum to white South African farmers.

At the core of such policies lies soft eugenics thinking—the idea that removing essential healthcare from vulnerable populations allows nature to determine who survives.

Illness and the Weak

While Kennedy’s “Maha” movement—which stands for “Make America Healthy Again”—doesn’t explicitly call for forced sterilizations or mass killings, its stance can feel more like resignation than advocacy. For instance, when he claims that autism is more detrimental than COVID-19 because the latter primarily affects older people, or when a supporter refers to measles as an “essential rite of passage,” he is hinting at soft eugenic ideologies. Instead of utilizing vaccines to protect all, they appear to suggest that the frail should be allowed to perish, with only the resilient left to thrive.

When discussing ways to improve health, Kennedy tends to point to diet and lifestyle as primary factors while downplaying the role of healthcare access and social services. He has asserted that eliminating chemicals from food would instantly restore health to the nation and even suggested reallocating funds spent on diabetes medication to cover gym memberships for the obese. His viewpoint implies that the unfit are the cause of nationwide health declines, not a system that restricts their access to healthy food and medical care.

While a nutritious diet and exercise are undeniably important, Kennedy’s focus shifts attention from public health solutions and contributes to the dismantling of support structures. His oversight of the Health and Human Services department, which recently cut a quarter of its workforce and closed down initiatives that address various environmental and social health contributors, exemplifies this trend.

His approach to the ongoing measles outbreak further illustrates this soft eugenics mentality. He incorrectly claimed that the measles vaccine offers no lasting protection and has made a series of misleading statements questioning its safety. Even as reports emerge of children suffering from vitamin A toxicity due to misinformation, he continues to promote unverified treatments.

Declining vaccination rates pose a significant risk, raising concerns that diseases like measles may soon become endemic. Recently, Kennedy appeared to reverse course, acknowledging that the MMR vaccine is effective against measles, although he quickly retracted his statement with further misinformation.

Turning to autism, a complex neurodevelopmental condition that has undergone extensive study, Kennedy’s recent comments frame it as a “preventable disease,” implying a toxin is to blame rather than genetic predispositions. This rhetoric aligns with longstanding but debunked claims linking vaccines to autism, specifically citing thimerosal, despite its previous removal from most vaccines. It’s worth noting that Kennedy has appointed a known vaccine skeptic to lead research into this supposed link.

Throughout his discourse, Kennedy erroneously associates autism with an epidemic, suggesting the existence of non-verbal autistic children as evidence. By disingenuously labeling it a disease and promising to eliminate environmental factors he believes cause it, he seems to suggest that autism is an aberration in need of eradication from the gene pool.

His nostalgic longing for a time before autism was recognized as a distinct diagnosis displays a profound misunderstanding of the condition’s history and nuances. Fabricated narratives thriving in contrarian wellness circles increasingly falter as Kennedy holds a position of significant influence over public health.

Pushing for Increased Births Among the “Smart”

Soft eugenics consists of not only blaming the weak for their health struggles but also encouraging the so-called strong to reproduce more. This brings us to Elon Musk, who often references IQ—a controversial and debated indicator of intelligence. He believes that to avert societal collapse, “smart” individuals must procreate more, although he does not clearly define what constitutes “smart.” His pronatalist agenda has led him to challenge himself to contribute to increasing the population of high-intelligence individuals.

While a comprehensive pronatalist program could involve government incentives for families, the current administration’s policies aim to cut social services while simultaneously encouraging births. Musk’s proposed baby bonus is unlikely to be a sufficient incentive when the cost of childbirth is so high.

His fixation on encouraging higher birth rates fails to address the multifaceted social and economic factors that contribute to decreasing fertility rates. If he genuinely wanted to promote childbirth, he wouldn’t be gutting essential services like USAID, which has already led to increased child mortality in regions facing conflicts.

His initiatives, resulting in substantial funding cuts to maternal and child health services, have deprived millions of pregnant women and newborns of crucial care. Moreover, reductions in funding for childhood vaccines have raised the stakes for preventable diseases, while large-scale disruptions to healthcare programs threaten many lives.

Both Kennedy and Musk share a troubling perspective that blames various contemporary issues on factors like food additives, igniting a misguided discourse around public health. This administration’s strategy focuses on cutting funding for the welfare of children instead of ensuring they are taken care of after birth.

The United States may not be immune to global disease outbreaks, and experts warn that cuts to international aid will eventually affect vulnerable populations at home. When those consequences arise, it will likely impact lower-income groups, seniors, and others reliant on public health systems. This brings into question the value Kennedy and Musk place on different lives.

Public Healthcare and Its Perception

In comparing health outcomes in the US to those in other nations, Kennedy often neglects to mention that many of these countries have universal healthcare systems. When pressed about this during confirmation hearings, he suggested that universal healthcare was unfair.

He cites smokers as an example of those who shouldn’t receive the same health benefits as healthier individuals, pushing a strict individual responsibility narrative. While he dismisses public health approaches aimed at addressing the social roots of health challenges, he favors a more punitive view that aligns with an individualistic ethos.

This disregard for public health initiatives contrasts sharply with the majority view among health officials, which advocates for universal healthcare to improve outcomes, especially for marginalized demographics. The Maha activists’ manipulation of data about health disparities seemingly supports a call for personal responsibility while conveniently ignoring the broader systemic issues in play.

Ultimately, this dynamic mirrors the populist rhetoric seen in other political movements, aiming to slash support for the vulnerable, all while reinforcing power for the affluent. Kennedy’s nostalgic idealization of a past America, bolstered by a network of wellness influencers, reflects a yearning to recreate a privileged society that likely never existed.

Geneticist Adam Rutherford articulates this sentiment in his book, *Control: The Dark History and Troubling Present of Eugenics*, noting that the obsession with a glorified past runs deep within the eugenics movement. Kennedy’s vision for health mirrors an idyllic fantasy, one where healthy living is readily available only to those within an exclusive enclave.