top of page

by Sylphia Basak for The 44 North, Contributing Writer - Politics


Via Getty Images
Via Getty Images

Editor's Note:


The following article reflects the views & analysis of the author. As with all opinion and essay submissions, the piece has been edited for clarity and reviewed carefully for factual accuracy, but the interpretations & arguments are the author’s own. The 44 North publishes an array of perspectives & voices to encourage and ensure thoughtful engagement with complex social, political, historical, and cultural issues.


"Those who refer to these uprisings as pure violence miss protestors removing barricades for ambulances and firetrucks. It ignores men pulling women from detention buses, or handing looted groceries to the unhoused and period products to women. [...] In other words, this revolution, like all which came before it, has been driven by unparalleled, profound love."

For the second consecutive weekend, protests around the world have mobilized en masse whilst police and government forces continue to crack down on dissenters. October 24th saw nearly a million demonstrators walking the streets of France. Protests in Italy, Serbia, Albania, and more all eclipsed hundreds of thousands, followed by sweeping mass arrests and tens of thousands of riot police deployed. 


At the time of writing and publication, protests have erupted across several European countries: France, Spain, Italy, Albania, Serbia, Greece, Poland, Romania, and Cyprus. 


(A non-exhaustive list via Dazed below):



Initially dubbed the “Europe Spring” by journalist Ahmed Eldin, this recent tidal wave of dis-ease appears to have started in France, led by students protesting cuts to education. In tandem with other movements across Europe, it wasn’t long before the momentum spurred on other countries, inviting their people to respond in solidarity—channelling anger, rage, tension, and frustration.


According to on-the-ground accounts, protests in France escalated following an incident where a police officer fired a stun grenade into the crowd, resulting in a 15-year-old boy losing his hand. On October 17th, a nationwide call for mobilization resulted in citizens across France marching, barricading, playing music, and yes, eventually, rioting. 


Evidently, there is something to be said about October’s chill and its ability to ignite the revolutionary spirit. The days shorten and darken, and the people, at long last, feel their anguish is seen by something other than themselves. Political establishments have been stacking reasons to enact uprisings for as long as this generation has been alive, but certainly much longer:


The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) have been systematically implementing ethnic cleansing campaigns of religious minorities across India. Italy's far-right government has implemented several austerity-based policies which have rendered grocery shelves empty. Protests in Spain started over an 87-year-old woman’s eviction, her death following shortly after. Serbian and Albanian youth have long been protesting corruption in their governments. The systemic violence of these political institutions has cumulatively caused the deaths of millions and harm to millions more, both in their countries and abroad. It has ravaged our environment to the point of near inhabitability, and yet, it is our response which is deemed by politicians and legacy media as “violent.” 


Via Getty Images
Via Getty Images

Retaliation to violence is often used as justification for increasingly harsh police/military state tactics, and this recent onset of protests is no different. Marseille, Lyon, and Nice have now imposed curfews and a partial ban on protesting, while the Italian government is considering using biometric glasses to surveil crowds. Thousands in India have been arrested.


The narrative formed by politicians and far-right figures across the (Western) world has attempted to name Black and Brown immigrants as the primary culprits of rioting and looting. U.S. president Donald Trump was quoted saying, “...(France) a once-great country has been “conquered, looted, and burned to the ground by migrants, jihadists, and communists.” (Guardian)


French president Emmanuel Macron referred to October 17th as violent acts of “left-wing extremism.”


Of course, the narrative that immigrants are responsible for the riots contradicts uprisings in countries such as Albania and Serbia, which are significantly more racially homogeneous (white). These protests have gone largely under-reported. 


Despite a rather clear throughline between protests—namely, austerity budget cuts to public services such as education and health, government corruption, and foreign (American) interference in policy—there seems to be a concerted effort to report them as isolated, disjointed acts of violence, rather than a response to the conditions of living under a Colonial-Capitalist system. 


Headlines from legacy media reveal biased language favouring the narratives of their affiliated political establishments, leading with violence against the state and destruction of property. Before any additional context, “Unrest”, “looting”, and “violence” are terms used by the Financial Times (FT), Washington Post (WaPo), and New York Times (NYT) to describe the uprisings. However, true to precedent in mainstream reporting on left-wing/anti-imperialist political movements, invoking the imagery of “violence” is somehow never applied to what precedes the civil unrest.


A data report by NewsCord demonstrates this skewing of language and reporting from legacy media organizations throughout the protests:



As attested to by on-the-ground accounts, the organizers and demonstrators of these protests understand these existing contradictions, which is perhaps why legacy media has made such a vehement effort to discredit the nature of these protests.


Pictured are examples of some of the headlines used by Western media outlets:


There is and has always been a concerted effort to diminish the impact of Gen-Z protests and political organizations across the world. The youth of today are besmirched as “lazy” or increasingly conservative, likely as a means of discouragement from organizing in community. As such, many strides toward progress that our generation has made are delegitimized—even by our own. However, the reality is—clear by all on-the-ground accounts—that these protests have proven themselves to be incredibly well-organized, initiated by Gen Z’s “laziness.” That precision of organization and execution can only come from a thoughtful, acute awareness of economic strain that led to these protests.

 

Globally, the cost of living has, on average, risen 4.3% as of August 2026, while the minimum living wage has, on average, remained stagnant over the last 20 years; about 45% of countries experienced stagnation in minimum wages. Of course, this has exacerbated an already towering cost of living globally and contributed to fuel shortages.


Further, a notable double standard in reporting and general rhetoric around property and tourism fuels the incrimination of Gen-Z-led protests. Destruction of historic buildings is “blasphemous” in France and Italy, but a “byproduct of war” in Palestine, Lebanon, Iran, etc. Those who hand-wring over the disruption of their luxury travel and vacations too easily forget a citizen's right to quality of life. 


For some, the entitlement that the state and certain sub-sections of the population feel toward comfort—while basic infrastructure literally and figuratively crumbles—has harkened back to testimonies of life in Israel-Occupied Palestine. In fact, the conditions which catalyzed Europe-wide protests are a direct result of Western nations channelling taxpayer money into military and war campaigns throughout West Asia. For example, and more specifically: The targeting of Yemen and Iran, which resulted in the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz or the Yemeni Houthis’ (Ansar Allah) continued targeting of Saudi Arabian oil tankers as defence. These have resulted in oil prices ballooning to unprecedented levels—a 60% climb since the war with Iran began (New York Times).


As organized as states have been, so too have protests. 


Via Getty Images
Via Getty Images

Leading up to the October 24th protest in Paris, a comprehensive map and schedule coordinating the time and locations of protests throughout the city was created and posted to social media. There is a day shift and a night shift. There are legal aid and medical workers. There is class and national solidarity unseen in recent memory. An Albanian protester spoke of his regular contact with Serbians. Students of better-funded schools across France protested alongside those attending school in underfunded areas of the country. 


Those who refer to these uprisings as pure violence miss protestors removing barricades for ambulances and fire trucks. It ignores men pulling women from detention buses, or handing looted groceries to the unhoused and period products to women. It ignores the fact that these protests have been organized and sustained by a disenfranchised youth and working class who have spent their lives surviving chronic catastrophe. This generation’s coming of age is defined by political, social, economic, and environmental turmoil. It seems inevitable that there would come a day when that momentum cannot be quelled. 


In other words, this revolution, like all which came before it, has been driven by unparalleled, profound love.


Much to the chagrin of many world leaders—Trump, Macron, and Marine Le Pen—these protests have catalyzed tangible results. 


Serbia’s Aleksander Vucic has stepped down after 14 years, and the student party has taken the majority of parliament seats. Brazil has successfully re-elected Lula Da-Silva over far-right candidate and former president Flavio Bolsonaro, despite American interference. The French government has pledged funding for schools and admissions overhauls, contradicting the finger-wagging of mainstream political establishments, who did their best—in earnest—to convince the world that riots don’t work. 


Protests in Italy and Spain continue over food and cost of living prices, including riots cropping up in Bilbao, while protests across Asian and Latin American countries have sustained their cadence despite government repression. 


Via Getty Images
Via Getty Images

And while, yes, our movements have not achieved the long-lasting systemic changes we hoped for (yet), there has been an undeniably seismic shift in our social fabric: Against global capitalism, imperialism, in the increased support for police reform and abolition, in the embracing of queer identities, etc. Through movements such as Black Lives Matter and student encampments in support of Palestinian sovereignty, our generation has (re)exposed many of the chasms in social infrastructure. We would be remiss to act as though that counts for nothing—especially as youth around the world continue to revolt. 


As the U.K., several European countries, and the Japanese government urge their citizens to stockpile essential supplies, alongside Iran issuing instructions in the event of a nuclear attack, it is clear that Western leaders show no signs of relenting on war. As the price of essentials continues to increase and public services continue to be cut, protests against using taxpayer money for unnecessary war (all to avoid holding an apartheid state accountable for genocide) will continue to serve a vital purpose. 


Protests are meant to disrupt the social order until authority has no choice but to concede to the demands of the public. Establishments would render us cynical and distrusting of our neighbours, unable to imagine a world where we stand arm in arm, united against a common enemy, for this exact reason. 


Should coverage of these protests or any future ones halt, it will not be because protest and dissent have stopped. For as long as the root causes of these protests do not relent, neither will they. We should hope that action remains sustained. Otherwise, the alternative is a world in which a ruling class is entitled to enact perpetual catastrophe in exchange for the remaining power on a burning planet. Protests have proven effective, and we, as a generation, have proven we can change this world for the better.  


Additional Sources:


Sylphia Basak is a journalist/writer and activist who uses a variety of mediums to convey the story she wants to tell. Her work prioritizes a decolonial lens, and seeks to counteract and analyze Western media and culture as a way of highlighting the primary contradictions of the current political climate.


by Randa Ali for The 44 North, Guest Writer 


Youth are increasingly faced with climate anxiety and strong opinions about wars they aren’t signing up for, yet will inherit. The environmental cost of war shows that these two issues are interconnected and that this data is not being provided to them.


Artwork by Logan Brewer
Artwork by Logan Brewer

"When it comes to the intersection of war and the environment, youth feel how heavily it has and will impact them. They expect more from world leaders."

Editor's Note:


This article is the first installment of a three-part series. The 44 North will release two more articles, the first delving into how Canadian policy allows the military to avoid climate accountability and the second discussing how the environments of countries experiencing conflict are hit the hardest. Youth will discuss how they feel about the climate impact of the bombings they witness from their phones, alongside Canada’s specific role in the environmental cost of war.



“Yesterday morning I woke up, and the sky was orange,” says Sylphia, who describes witnessing the effects of climate change in Toronto this summer. As a 24-year-old freelance journalist who writes on the Middle East and keeps up with news on climate change, she’s no stranger to how these two issues intersect. When she thought about speaking about the environmental cost of war with The 44 North, she said: “I think the environment, war, and capitalism are very interconnected webs.”


Youth are reporting feeling immense climate anxiety and frustration over wars they never subscribed to, but will inherit the consequences of. After witnessing the impacts of bombings via independent journalists documenting conflict zones on their social media feeds, they already know that wars harm the environment. Due to a lack of accountability and communication in reporting the impacts of militaries and war on climate, youth—and everyone, really—are left unaware of the full extent of these intersecting crises. Through interviews with three climate-conscious youth and one climate researcher, The 44 North explores what youth need to know about the environmental cost of war.


What the environmental cost of war means


Youth are painfully aware of how deeply war and conflict are affecting the world. “This has been going on for years and years and years and years,” says Ethan, a law student, recalling multiple global conflicts, particularly in Gaza. 


This is not just a feeling. Since records began being collected in 1946, there hasn’t been a single year without conflict. The global conflict tracker by the Council on Foreign Relations shows nearly 30 active conflicts are unfolding across the world as of 2026,  the environmental impacts of which aren’t being reported by the responsible parties, ranging from carbon emissions to environmental degradation. This doesn’t come as a surprise to Sylphia, especially given her line of work: “I do think that there’s a definite thread between the multiple ongoing wars, [...]the military industrial complex and how much the climate crisis seems to have accelerated.”


The full scope of the environmental cost of war is vast: The resource extraction, energy use, emissions from maintaining military weapons and personnel, war-fighting, physical destruction of the land, and reconstruction of the ruins. Ethan paints a picture of his understanding of this full process:  


“The environmental cost is not just the dropping of bombs, but the extracting of all the raw materials necessary to build them, and the oil being spent to ship them across international waters [between] where the raw materials are [excavated] to where bombs are constructed. And then, there’s the oil used to fly the fighter jets.”


Photo by Edgar Serrano via Unsplash
Photo by Edgar Serrano via Unsplash

The weight of military emissions


When we think of the world’s worst climate offenders, few people expect military emissions to top the list. The intersection between militarism and the environment is rarely discussed—whether in mainstream media, statistics released by global bodies, or advocacy through most environmental organizations. Meanwhile, researchers and advocates in this field say that the environmental impacts of the military are too vast to continue to overlook. 


Andrew Jorgenson is a professor of sociology at the University of British Columbia (UBC), and the founding director of UBC’s Climate & Society Lab. Jorgenson’s research examines how national militaries contribute to their respective country's economies and overall carbon emissions. When he teaches students about the environmental impacts of the military, he says,  "A common reaction [is]  'Wow, this really makes a lot of sense. I've never thought about this. It's never crossed my mind.'"


Military activity and its enormous global supply chains are estimated to account for approximately 5.5% of all global greenhouse gas emissions during relative peacetime post-World War II. The world’s militaries emit approximately 2.75 billion tonnes of CO₂ equivalent per year. These emissions are greater than the entire global shipping (3%) and aviation (2%) industries combined. In fact, if the world’s militaries were a country, they would have the fourth highest carbon footprint on the planet, higher than the entire nation of Russia.


Further, these numbers are an estimation: Military emissions are one of the largest unaccounted sources of carbon emissions in the world. Despite a drastic rise in conflict and war, the data remains concealed, optional to report, and consistently omitted from global climate accounting. Furthermore, if the full scope of destruction and reconstruction were added, researchers expect the true figure would be many times higher.


"If anything, we're all probably under-counting,” says Jorgenson. “What we're estimating is very conservative [compared to] the actual overall impacts."


A white cardboard sign reading “System not climate change” in black capital letters.
A white cardboard sign reading “System not climate change” in black capital letters.

The burning of fossil fuels is the main component fueling human-led climate change, and an essential part of running global militaries. The military runs on an enormous amount of fossil fuels, demonstrated most clearly by the U.S. military. The U.S. Department of War, formerly known as the Department of Defence, is the world’s largest institutional consumer of petroleum, accounting for 80% of all U.S. Federal government energy consumption since 2001. In 2024, the combined military emissions of NATO countries, China, and Russia reached a record high of 551 million metric tonnes of CO2 equivalent. This is the equivalent of driving over 300 million cars on the road every year. 


As Jorgenson researches this data to figure out what drives military energy consumption, he shares, “Part of it is largely [...] tied to the direct burning of fossil fuels by jets and other related machinery, because they're just so energy intensive."


In Canada, the Department of Defence accounts for 60% of its federal emissions. Sarah, an environmental engineering student who asked that her name be changed to protect her privacy, was surprised to hear this figure. “I didn't think the number was that large,” she says. “I thought it was more like 20%.” 


Why military emissions are not included 


The responsibility for the carbon footprint of militaries was deliberately left out of the climate equation almost 30 years ago, before most of today’s youth were even born. During the Kyoto Accords in 1997, the United States successfully lobbied to exclude military emissions from any global climate frameworks. The Paris Agreement partly addressed this issue, leaving reporting voluntary. Of the 70 largest militaries committed to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), only half submit any military emissions data. Even among those that do, no nation reports emissions on war-fighting activities. At best, experts estimate that militaries only report 10% of their carbon footprint. 


"A lot of governments, when they don't want to take accountability for something specific, either j don't report on it or don’t [collect] the data for it,” says Sarah. “Part of a functioning democracy is [making] that data available so that people can ask for what they want because they can see the whole picture [...] If you can't see what [the government is] doing, then how do you know what to ask for?"


Via Unsplash
Via Unsplash

Military emissions matter now


Researchers have been sounding the alarm about military emissions for decades and maintain that it’s a critical time for addressing the extent of this issue. As global military spending has risen every year for the past decade, setting a record $2.7 trillion in 2024, emissions have grown with them. Countries have released plans to expand their militaries even further, which implies an emissions-saturated future without any plans for climate accountability. As current wars stretch across months and even years, these active conflicts will continue to add unmeasured and devastating costs to the environment. Without including these costs, researchers say the picture of the environmental cost of war is still out of sight: plans to decarbonize cannot be made without these essential data points. 


When it comes to crafting decarbonization plans or reducing environmental impact, the targets militaries have set almost exclusively address buildings and administrative vehicles. The emissions associated with their operational fleets (fighter jets, tanks, warships, and more), alongside international operations, make up the majority of emissions. Jorgenson says his research found an important opportunity, where "Modest decreases in military spending for the U.S., such as a 6% decrease in their annual military spending budget, could lead to [meaningful reductions in energy consumption]."


Governments, global bodies, and militaries are aware of this significance and the environmental impacts of their operations and warfighting. In 2021, NATO Secretary General Stoltenberg said, “There is no way to reach net zero without also including emissions from the military.” 


Looking Ahead


The discussion on the environmental cost of war does not end here. To any students wondering what to do with this information, Jorgenson says: "Now [that] you actually know about it, and you're thinking about it [...] share this with your friends and your relatives and your colleagues."


When it comes to the intersection of war and the environment, youth feel how heavily it has and will impact them. They expect more from world leaders. Sarah shares her message to the government on how their actions are reflecting to youth:


"The government needs to start taking accountability for the emissions that occur from war. And not only that, but the social impact costs as well. Because this is not only affecting the environment, it's also affecting people." 


The 44 North will release two more articles, the first delving into how Canadian policy allows the military to avoid climate accountability and the second discussing how the environments of countries experiencing conflict are hit the hardest. Youth will discuss how they feel about the climate impact of the bombings they witness from their phones, alongside Canada’s specific role in the environmental cost of war. 


Randa Ali is a Toronto writer whose work focuses on sustainability, climate, arts & culture. She's interested in how intersections between people, planet, and profit shape politics, culture, and communities. She holds a Master of Science in Sustainability Management from the University of Toronto and is training in journalism. Randa’s work can be seen on Instagram @byrandaali.


by Temi Jolaawo for The 44 North, Guest Writer


"If smaller, digital forms of consumer-driven eugenics remain normalized and unchecked, the ideology of eugenics risks evolving from past atrocities such as forced sterilization, segregation, or genocide to a widespread belief system; a system so covert that it could become a harmful and pervasive belief entirely under the radar."

“Let the parents go on—we need 500 of these models,” was the first supposedly ‘harmless’ comment I saw under a viral lip-sync video. However, when I continued scrolling, the tone of these comments only grew more disturbing. Comments such as “Keep producing to better humanity,” “They have good genes,” and “Imagine a world with a billion Scandinavians instead of Indians” each received hundreds of likes. The four girls in the video—platinum hair and sapphire eyes—were undeniably gorgeous, but the comments had little to do with admiration. Instead, they revealed something far more troubling: The recent rebrand of an age-old ideology made new. This ideology is called eugenics, and it should not be resurrected. 


Eugenics isn’t a new word by any means. We’ve seen it in the Fitter Family Competitions that rated families based on physical traits and perceived social status, in the Nuremberg Laws of 1935, aiming to prevent “race defilement,” and in the forced sterilization of countless innocent women deemed unsuitable for reproduction. Eugenics has been admonished by most of the modern greater society, particularly after becoming synonymous with World War II. Nonetheless, eugenics, like any other damaging movement, has wound itself back into mainstream conversations. Eugenics never disappeared—it simply adapted.


Eugenics is a scientifically refuted worldview that aims to “improve a population’s genetic composition” through selective breeding (Merriam-Webster, n.d.). It misinterprets the Mendelian law of genetics, believing complex human characteristics can be passed down as simply as single-gene traits. Eugenics claims that human traits such as intelligence, criminality, and other social behaviours could simply be “bred out.”


Now, eugenics appears in more subtle ways: In pseudo-scientific articles that claim certain races face discrimination based on genetic differences, in groups of people who advocate for wealthy individuals to reproduce to “save the human race,” or via that one guy across the street who is against interracial relationships on the premise of ‘protecting racial purity.’ These examples all fall under the umbrella term ‘consumer-driven eugenics,’ the modern reinvention of a centuries-old doctrine. Although consumer-driven eugenics may not be as invasive or overt as previous forms of the ideology, this ‘soft’ or ‘social’ form of eugenics still reinforces the same dehumanizing notion that certain individuals are fundamentally superior to the people around them, and that humans exist in genetic tiers or hierarchies.


Many social hierarchies, such as caste systems, feudalism, white supremacy, and colonial structures, have unjustly held power throughout history. While none is inherently worse or more palatable than the other, eugenics differs slightly. Eugenics not only upholds existing hierarchies—particularly white supremacy—to rank the value of an individual’s genes based on racism, ableism, and misogyny, but it also seeks to enforce these views through physical and often coercive means. This is where I believe eugenics shifts from a hierarchy to an ideology, becoming a complex worldview. It aims to take tangible measures to reach its goal of human perfection.


Eugenics, then, became actionable in two ways: Positively and negatively. Positive eugenics aims to promote reproduction between people who are genetically sound, and negative eugenics discourages, or forcibly bars, reproduction between people deemed genetically inferior (NIH, n.d). For example, in 1933, the American Birth Control League wrote, “Birth Control is of importance when it advocates birth selection by encouraging reproduction of the mentally, physically, and socially adequate and the birth restriction of those not so equipped (Whitney, 1933, p. 85).”


In 1924, the Sterilization Act in Virginia was passed, allowing the state to sterilize anyone deemed “feeble-minded” by force (NIH, 2021). But what did ‘feebleminded’ really mean? It could mean “intellectually inferior,” “troublesome,” or simply “promiscuous” by the state—all ambiguous definitions allowing the state to dictate who had the right to reproduce—who got to be seen in future generations—at its discretion.


The terms ‘feebleminded’ and ‘promiscuous’ are what condemned 18-year-old Carrie Buck to forced sterilization in Virginia, for example. The state didn’t ask about her mother’s past, or the fact that Carrie herself had been unwillingly assaulted; rather, they wanted to sterilize her to “prevent her from passing her perceived feeblemindedness to future generations (Kalomiris, 2022)." The state of Virginia saw someone a notch below perfect on the genetic social hierarchy, a problem that needed to be fixed, erased, and barred from the possibility of future reproduction.


Although there are notable victims such as Carrie Buck, many victims worldwide remain unknown; victims who lost their right to autonomy because they were deemed “genetically inferior” by the state (Lira, 2018). There has been a steady decline in reports of state-supported eugenics, especially after its negative connotations to Nazi Germany when it “flourished during the three decades before the end of World War II (NHGRI, 2022).” Despite this, I believe that through our culture’s thought processes, laws, and opinions, consumer-driven eugenics persists. 


This form of eugenics manifests itself in smaller settings. Instead of state-led eugenics campaigns, this modern-day form of eugenics is often a personal choice—many individuals, small corporations, and even politicians seem to believe in worldviews similar to those of past eugenicists, such as anti-immigration sentiments and “great replacement” ideologies (Sear, n.d). People who believe in modern-day eugenics have found ways to sanitize certain terms. For example, instead of overtly claiming racial superiority, they speak in dog whistles, such as referencing “genetic differences.” This sanitization of eugenics has allowed its notions to be publicly shared, discussed, and normalized with little to no opposition. 


The normalization of eugenics becomes especially harmful when done through social media, given its efficiency and reach. Social media—although implicitly—has contributed to the recent rebranding of eugenics. Its algorithms often recommend personalized, polarizing content that can expose users to and amplify radical ideologies, including eugenics. While the process of radicalization may be complex, social media encourages divisive content and provides a platform for it to spread (Shaw, 2023). This is further exacerbated by social media’s global reach, which turns ideas that would otherwise be an individual’s ideology into a worldwide discussion. As a result, radical, eugenicist ideologies can gradually become more visible and even more normalized in mainstream media.


Although social media can’t be blamed as the sole driver of rebranding eugenics, it plays a critical role, even during our most recent wars. A clear example is the war in Sudan, where there was a stark difference in the way the media and society acknowledged the inhumane conditions Sudanese civilians endured (Booty et al., 2025). Russia’s war on Ukraine, for example, was met with greater sympathy and empathetic language toward refugees, showing that many still believe, even if implicitly, that some lives matter more than others. 


In smaller-scale online situations, comments praising only one kind of beauty or employing hate speech have risen. It doesn’t take much scrolling through Instagram reels, for example, to see negative comments under a video of an interracial couple, claiming they’re “traitors to their own race.” These negative comments—reflective of old, harmful ideologies—have seemed to increase in recent years, fueled in part by the counter-cultural push towards conservatism. 


Modern-day eugenics also relies on scientific misinformation and propaganda to sustain its influence and relevance. Health propaganda, widely spread online, fuels skepticism and distrust among different groups of people, promoting division and keeping the movement relevant. The “dying white race,” for example, is a narrative that ignites fear of an “imminent white genocide” (Levine-Rasky, 2014). These theories misrepresent demographic data and weaponize it against other groups without addressing the broader societal trends. This “data” is then used to justify eugenics and similar ideologies. 


“Genetic inferiority” is also an ideology commonly spread online. These ideologies, as noted by prominent individuals such as Elon Musk, hold that wealthy people have a responsibility to pass on their genes and to “better society” (Schmitz, 2025). These are only two instances of health misinformation seen online, but many remain. If smaller, digital forms of consumer-driven eugenics remain normalized and unchecked, the ideology of eugenics risks evolving from past atrocities such as forced sterilization, segregation, or genocide to a widespread belief system; a system so covert that it could become a harmful and pervasive belief entirely under the radar.


If the damaging social effects of eugenics aren’t frightening enough, research indicates that eugenics is scientifically misinformed. The essential ideals of eugenics are based on scientific racism or pseudoscience and are discredited by scientific findings (NHGRI, 2022). The basis of eugenics is to protect people with perceived ‘good genes’ from extinction, and to promote their genes to the future generation. Ironically, eugenics goes directly against its main objectives.


Eugenics discourages certain phenotypes from reproducing, promoting one kind of human. This is detrimental to genetic diversity, which does more harm than good for humanity. Gibson (2018) noted that, “Disease protection is among the most well-supported consequences of genetic diversity in populations.” With a lack of genetic variation, humanity is limited and cannot adapt to our ever-changing environment, ultimately making us more vulnerable to extinction and disease. In the words of Sear (n.d), “Eugenics really is ideology, not science.”


Modern-day eugenics is a concept with disturbing potential in today’s world. Every joke resembling eugenic ideals of the past threatens to normalize harm. Those portrayed as dangerous by modern-day eugenics are often the ones who live in constant fear of the society that targets them. 


Understanding the past is crucial to preventing the ever-present resurgence of eugenics. Although we’ve improved, we still have work to do. Eugenics hasn’t been removed from our laws, our systems, or our opinions. It’s “the very foundation of our current cultural mindset and our present modes of thinking, being, and doing” (“Historical Chronology”, 2021-2024, p. 3). We need to address the recent rise of eugenics, especially online, and tackle our obsession with “the ideal human.” Maybe our pursuit of human perfection has obscured our appreciation for humanity.


Editor's Note:


The following article reflects the views & analysis of the author. As with all opinion and essay submissions, the piece has been edited for clarity and reviewed carefully for factual accuracy, but the interpretations & arguments are the author’s own. The 44 North publishes an array of perspectives & voices to encourage and ensure thoughtful engagement with complex social, political, historical, and cultural issues.



References


Temi Jolaawo is a volunteer, community leader, and 11th-grade student who attends Nanaimo Christian School in BC, Canada. As a recent volunteer for Island Health, Temi Jolaawo is actively committed to nurturing her interests in public health and social issues/justice. Temi currently enjoys playing sports, listening to music, and making art. Through the art non-profit she founded, “CreationStationNanaimo,” she shares her love for art and creativity with various children in the community.


bottom of page