Above is my illustration, depicting a scene of the movie 300, of Spartan eugenics and infanticide.
Eugenics—derived from the Greek words for “well born”—emerged in the late 19th century as a movement aimed at improving the genetic quality of human populations through selective reproduction. The concept was first articulated by Francis Galton, who believed that traits such as intelligence, mental health, and moral character could be inherited and therefore enhanced in the human race through scientific intervention and deliberate breeding decisions. Galton’s early writings, including Hereditary Genius, laid the foundation for what would become an international movement aligned with ideas of social progress and biological determinism.
Origins and Early Intellectual Context
Eugenics found fertile ground in the scientific optimism of the Victorian era, following the publication of Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species in 1859. While Darwin focused on natural selection, Galton insisted that artificial selection—curating who should and should not reproduce—could accelerate the process of evolutionary improvement. Scholars such as Herbert Spencer popularized notions of “survival of the fittest” in social contexts, arguing that welfare systems interfered with nature’s mechanism of optimal selection.
As social Darwinism spread across Europe and North America in the late 19th century, many reformers, scientists, and public officials embraced eugenics as a “scientific” way to combat poverty, disability, and criminality. According to an early British Medical Journal report in 1904, proponents believed that without intervention, undesirable traits would proliferate more rapidly in modern industrial societies than in traditional agrarian systems.
Institutionalization of Eugenics in the Early 20th Century
Around the turn of the 20th century, eugenics transitioned from theoretical speculation to public policy. In the United States, state and federal policymakers began to adopt legislation promoting compulsory sterilization of individuals labeled “feebleminded” or “habitual criminals.” The Indiana Sterilization Law of 1907 was the first of its kind, leading to tens of thousands of forced sterilizations over the next several decades.
Societies and exhibitions were organized to promote positive eugenics, encouraging those deemed “fit” to reproduce more. The Second International Congress of Eugenics (New York, 1921), attracted physicians, anthropologists, and politicians from the United States and Europe. The exhibitions praised “better babies” contests and displayed family pedigrees as evidence of superior lineage.
In Britain, figures such as Karl Pearson and George Bernard Shaw supported eugenic principles. While compulsory sterilization legislation repeatedly failed in Parliament, voluntary segregation and institutional confinement of the so-called “degenerate” gained traction, according to archival reports from the Eugenics Education Society (1909).
The Spread of Eugenic Policies Worldwide
Scandinavian countries, particularly Sweden and Norway, adopted extensive eugenic programs aimed at curbing hereditary illness. Sweden legalized sterilization in 1934, and by the mid-1950s more than 60,000 procedures had been performed, as reported by a University of Oslo study (1959). Similarly, Japan’s National Eugenic Law of 1940 (1948) authorized sterilization for people suffering from mental illness or hereditary neurological conditions.
In the United States, the Buck v. Bell ruling in 1927 legitimized forced sterilization. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes famously declared, “Three generations of imbeciles are enough,” cementing legal support for eugenic practices.
Nazi Germany and the Radicalization of Eugenics
The Nazi regime in Germany adopted the most extreme interpretation of eugenics. The 1933 Law for the Prevention of Hereditarily Diseased Offspring, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum archive) mandated compulsory sterilization for individuals with over 10 categories of conditions, including epilepsy, schizophrenia, and congenital blindness. By 1939, approximately 400,000 people had been sterilized.
As World War II began, the Nazi government escalated eugenic ideology to justify systematic extermination programs. The T-4 Euthanasia Program (1945) targeted individuals with intellectual and physical disabilities and laid the administrative groundwork for the broader Holocaust. Millions of Jews, Roma, and Slavic peoples were murdered based on racial and hereditary criteria.
Post-War Rejection and Ethical Reassessment
In the aftermath of 1945, international bodies such as the United Nations responded with declarations affirming basic human rights. The Nuremberg Code (1947) condemned coercive medical practices, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) asserted the dignity and equality of all individuals regardless of race or lineage.
Although formal eugenic policies declined, genetic counseling began to emerge in the 1950s and 1960s as a means of helping families understand hereditary disease. According to a report in the New England Journal of Medicine (1963), many doctors encouraged parents to use genetic information to make decisions about reproduction. This raised concerns among ethicists that a “voluntary” version of eugenics might be emerging, albeit under a medicalized guise.
During the 1970s, various scandals revealed that coerced sterilizations continued in certain institutions. Investigative reporting by the Los Angeles Times (1975) exposed instances in which Native American women were sterilized without consent.
Technological Advances and Renewed Ethical Concerns
In the late 20th century, scientific advances in molecular genetics radically expanded the possibilities of reproductive intervention. The development of amniocentesis and prenatal diagnostic testing allowed physicians to detect genetic abnormalities before birth. By the 1980s, in vitro fertilization (IVF) combined with pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) offered parents the ability to screen embryos for genetic disease, as discussed in a Nature editorial (1988).
While many viewed these techniques as tools for reducing human suffering, others warned that the line between disease prevention and genetic enhancement could blur. A 1990 BBC Panorama investigation noted that parents were already beginning to ask whether certain traits—such as sex, height, or eye color—could be selected.
Scholars and ethicists began to raise questions about “consumer eugenics”, arguing that market forces rather than governments might now drive the pursuit of genetic optimization. The Hastings Center Report (2004) expressed concern that such choices could reinforce social inequality and stigmatize individuals with disabilities.
Legacies and Lessons
The brutal history of 20th-century eugenics leaves a profound ethical legacy. Past programs disproportionately targeted marginalized communities, including people with disabilities, racial minorities, and women in poverty. In 2002, the State of Virginia issued a formal apology for the forced sterilization of more than 8,000 people. Similar apologies have since been issued by North Carolina, Alberta (Canada), and Sweden.
Even with formal repudiation, the core dilemmas remain. Can society utilize genetic knowledge responsibly without repeating the coercive practices of the past? Where should the boundary be drawn between preventing suffering and engineering “desirable” traits? These questions continue to shape modern bioethical debates.
Conclusion
Eugenics arose from idealistic hopes that humanity could be scientifically perfected. Yet its implementation led to some of the darkest episodes in modern history—from the treatment of marginalized communities in democratic societies to the genocidal policies of totalitarian regimes. Today, revolutionary genetic technologies offer extraordinary potential to alleviate disease, but they also raise serious ethical risks.
The historical experience of eugenics teaches us that scientific advancement must be guided by steadfast respect for human dignity, informed consent, and social equality. As we move deeper into the age of genetic medicine, these lessons remain not only relevant, but essential.