In today’s conversations, the specter of eugenics is more present than most people want to admit. In 1883, Francis Galton created the field of eugenics. This highly contested political disposition supports the improvement of human populations via selective reproduction. Galton called on those endowed with what he considered “desirable” traits to reproduce. Simultaneously, he wanted to discourage or outright stop people with “undesirable” traits from having children. This core principle, like the hands it is intended to protect, has changed over the decades, leading to countless disastrous interpretations and applications throughout history.
Fast forward to today, where Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Elon Musk are the new harbingers of eugenics. They do so from wildly opposite vantage points. Kennedy leads a complex $2.6 trillion agency with 45,000 employees. For months, the agency dealt with massive staff cuts and program shutdowns to combat the intricate, complex environmental and social determinants impacting public health. Musk has taken his pronatalist advocacy to a personal level. He has made it his mission to increase the number of deeply smart people in the world, but his proposed trillion dollar budget cuts leave vital child health programs dangling.
The Legacy of Galton and Its Modern Implications
Francis Galton’s original vision of eugenics was harmless compared to the impacts of a movement that would soon follow. His advocacy for the notion of “desirable” traits kicked off a huge, contentious discussion. That grave miscalculation ultimately paved the way to some of the worst human rights abuses in modern history. We can see how the eugenics movement has tragically played out in more recent years. Human societies have largely succeeded in bringing these principles to bear on public policy and social norms.
Today, these ideas play out in dangerous ways through the policies pushed by some of these same personalities. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., for example, has taken up the anti-vaccine cause and its anti-government blame-shifting scapegoating of health-makers. His approach is true to Galton’s original intent. It achieves this through environmental and educational approaches, rather than through blatant sterilization or coercion.
Kennedy is frequently introspective about his childhood, lamenting an era when diabetes and autism weren’t so rampant. He compares this to today, where he claims personal decision making has worsened health outcomes. He states, “It’s very difficult for a healthy person to die from measles,” as he praises alternative treatments like vitamin A for infected children. This line of thought begs the question of how much burden should be placed on people and how much on the systems shaping health.
The Controversial Practices of Modern Advocates
Related Kennedy’s recent moves under the umbrella of “ Maha ” or “ Make America Healthy Again ” have caused quite a stir. He’s not in favor of coerced sterilizations or genocide. Yet, for all the good intentions behind his policies, too often his rhetoric reveals a troubling disregard for those who don’t live up to his vision of health. He has stated that autism is already “worse than Covid-19” because it affects more young people. This announcement echoes his regressive agenda to upend public health priorities.
Elon Musk’s involvement in this discourse takes a different form, as he challenges himself to “seed the earth with more human beings of high intelligence.” This new government-supported pronatalist agenda is born at a high price, though. Musk’s unofficial nationwide experiment has made deep cuts to the budget. Though mostly obscure, these redefinitions have seriously impacted foreign aid programs that treat pneumonia and diarrhea, two of the top killers of young children.
As a result, these cuts have increased mortality rates for children under five by 25%. Yet during this same time period, there has been a dramatic increase in HIV and malaria cases throughout Africa. Critics of Musk’s approach say that by raising so many high-achieving people, he’s continuing to leave behind the most vulnerable populations. These groups desperately require consistent healthcare assistance.
The Ethics of Responsibility in Public Health
Together, Kennedy and Musk promote philosophies that foreshadow a deeply damaging ideological march that is taking root in our society. They call for a more indirect approach—that of “soft” eugenics—which influences population dynamics and public health outcomes. Kennedy’s ideological preference for a bootstraps mentality dovetails nicely with the central tenet of Reaganomics propaganda that pitted individual responsibility against systemic solutions. His personal story is clearly intended to imply that anyone who has health issues is largely to blame for their situation.
This movement toward individual responsibility poses serious ethical implications surrounding how we, as a society, care for our most vulnerable populations and those unable to care for themselves. Kennedy’s vision for a healthier America echoes a mythical Camelot, a vision steeped in idealism but lacking practical solutions for those facing real-world challenges.