By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Simone and Malcolm Collins, prominent advocates of the pronatalist movement, have proposed a “pronatalist” city-state to counter an anticipated demographic collapse. The couple, who have four children, proposed a dystopian-like model city-state where human reproductive biology is modified, the value of voting rights is determined by an individual’s perceived societal value, and the city-state is run by an executor or “dictoar”. Immersed in the rejection of traditional conservatism, the Collinses’ proposal was formulated for a supposed wealthy investor, who later turned out to be an undercover researcher from the UK-based anti-racism group, Hope Not Hate. Despite the proposal not being pitched, Simone and Malcolm Collins have said they stand by its core tenets. Their views align closely with those expressed by political figures like J.D. Vance and entrepreneur Elon Musk.
Read the original article here
Mass production of genetically selected humans is a concept that, while rooted in speculative science fiction, has begun to creep into serious political rhetoric, especially with the rise of pronatalist candidates in the U.S. elections of 2024. I find it profoundly unsettling that such ideas are being entertained in modern political discourse, particularly within a Pennsylvania candidate’s vision for a so-called fantasy city-state. The implications of this vision are vast and disturbing, manifesting a chilling amalgamation of eugenics with contemporary politics.
The notion of “Trueborn” individuals, as this candidate might label them, seemingly aims to present a purer form of humanity, one shaped through the selection of desirable traits. This term feels like a throwback to darker times in our history when genetic purity was a driving force behind discrimination, ignorance, and violence. Imagining a society that embraces the idea of genetically engineered humans is enough to make anyone who values the diversity of human experience shudder. The irony is palpable; the very essence of humanity—its flaws, its idiosyncrasies, its unique perspectives—would be sacrificed in a cold pursuit of a homogenized ideal.
The language surrounding this concept often glosses over the ethical quandaries and the real human lives tangled up in this fantasy. Advocates for such drastic measures rarely consider the consequences of engineering intelligence or physical appearance on psychological attributes or social dynamics. I can’t help but wonder about the parents who endorse this vision. It strikes me that their motivation stems from a desire to create a world in which they believe their children will flourish. Yet, in reality, they are championing a society devoid of the very unpredictability that fuels creativity and innovation. The children spawned from this model would inevitably inherit their parents’ fears, prejudices, and narrow perspectives, perpetuating a cycle of intellectual stagnation and cultural myopia.
The true human experience, with all its complexities, cannot be replicated in a lab. The idea my friends and I joked about in college—what if we could program children like software?—is now a frightening reality woven into the fabric of some political ideologies. The legal ramifications alone should horrify us: what happens when our very humanity is subject to market forces, become commodified? It is a slippery slope that once more raises the specter of authoritarianism masquerading as benevolence. The danger lies not only in the act of genetic selection but in the ideology that values some lives over others. The specter of an ‘idiocracy’ looms ever closer as we endorse political candidates willing to exploit these dangerous fantasies.
Imagine the kind of world where individuals who didn’t meet the “Trueborn” criteria are marginalized, leading to an even more extensive societal divide. Discrimination based not merely on race or class, but on genetic makeup, leads us into an abyss of ethical dilemmas and social unrest. How long before we begin to view people as mere vessels for genetic material rather than unique beings with intrinsic worth? The road to this dystopia is often paved with misguided intentions and rosy visions of a perfect society.
Political leaders must be held accountable, not just for their policies but for the implications of their rhetoric. The rise of pronatalist candidates who espouse these extraordinary ideas is, in part, a reflection of a society yearning for solutions to complex challenges. Yet the answer does not lie in stripping away our collective humanity through eugenics. Instead, it rests in embracing and accepting our differences, recognizing that diversity is what makes us resilient. We should collectively resist the dehumanizing narrative that reduces our identities to mere genetic attributes.
The upcoming 2024 elections are crucial not only for the policies they will shape but for the philosophical questions they pose about our future. As we move forward, it’s essential to engage in meaningful discussions about what it means to be human in an age of rapid scientific advancement. Rejecting the mass production of genetically selected humans should not only be a stance against eugenics but a call to uphold the principles of ethics, individuality, and empathy that enrich our democracy.