Catholic Eugenics?

[Larry1700]

However, this view of things is not easy to fit with a contemporary world view.

Fitting in with the “contemporary world view” should not be the goal. The goal should be to do the right thing. The “contemporary world view,” by definition, changes with the times. Slavery in the United States fit in with the contemporary view of many people. The contemporary view of Nazi Germany was that doing despicable medical experiments and slaughtering millions was for the greater good of German society. There must be a morality based on unchanging truths, not based on the latest consensus of the people, or on the belief of those few in power.

 

[Larry1700]

First, we now know that the human soul is not a binary entity which you either have or have not. Rather, the human mind is a product of the human brain, an incredibly complex physical system. This implies that there must be always gradations rather than sharp boundaries between what’s a mind and what’s not a mind, between what’s human and what’s not human. We can add details and remove details. So it seems likely that human rights, too, are graded rather than on/off.

Your premise here is that the soul and the mind are the same entity. While I’ve thought about this occasionally over the years, I haven’t taken the time to study about it in detail (so many books, so little time!), so for the purpose of this discussion I will accept your premise. What I will disagree with here is that gradations of the mind equate to gradations of human-ness (if that’s a word).

My point in an earlier post is that you are as human at conception as you are when you’re an Alzheimer’s patient who has lost mental functions, or a coma patient who has to be fed, bathed, cleaned, etc. You are not less human, you are a human who has lost some of its capabilities.

You see, when you use capabilities to define human, you open up a Pandora’s box of definitions, subject to the changing views of “contemporary” society.

I’m 48 yrs old, 6’, 265 pounds. I can bench press 205 pounds eight times, walk 3 miles on the treadmill at steep grades, and do 100 floors on the Stairmaster. Due to back surgery years ago, I am unable to run 5 miles a day like I used to. I can’t bench 450 pounds like Randy White. I can’t jump like Michael Jordan. I love math and science, but I can’t even remotely dream of every being the mental equal of Stephen Hawking.

On the flip side, Stephen Hawking couldn’t match my abilities on the treadmill, and he can’t even write a letter without the assistance of another person or technical device.

My point is, who is more human? By your view, the answer would be determined by “contemporary world view.” My answer is that we’re all equally human, but with a variety of abilities.

 

[Larry1700]

Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, what’s lacking entirely in this perspective is consequence analysis. Murdering or abusing an adult human being creates suffering. Mass-murder creates an enormous amount of human misery. Killing fertilized egg cells, in contrast, doesn’t influence the total suffering in the world the slightest. The egg cells don’t feel anything, and noone has any personal relation to them either. From the hardcore “human rights” perspective some of you adopt this doesn’t seem to matter. This is probably, from my point of view, the most bizarre aspect of your thinking.

To the best of my recollection, Pope Pius VI performed “consequence analysis” circa 1962, when he wrote about the potential outcomes of societal acceptance of birth control. He predicted that women would be viewed primarily as sex objects, the traditional family would be displaced by unwed mothers and unsupportive fathers, the perceived value of an individual human would decrease, etc. He was right. In addition to birth control, we now have abortion-on-demand, rap music praising the rape of women, TV and movies which glorify sexuality of women, and on and on. Just as birth control had an effect on society by cheapening human life , allowing abortions, exploitation of embryos for scientific analysis, and eugenics will further this cheapening of human life.

I also think this shows how dangerous pure “fundamental rights models” can be - dangerous, because if adopted by sufficiently fanatical people, they may perform the most horrid acts with good conscience. All that matters is that the right rules are followed, no matter what the consequences are.

I don’t follow you. What horrid acts are committed if humans are allowed to live from point A (conception) to point Z (natural death)?

 

[ribozyme]

In addition to birth control, we now have abortion-on-demand, rap music praising the rape of women, TV and movies which glorify sexuality of women, and on and on. Just as birth control had an effect on society by cheapening human life , allowing abortions, exploitation of embryos for scientific analysis, and eugenics will further this cheapening of human life.

I don’t follow you. What horrid acts are committed if humans are allowed to live from point A (conception) to point Z (natural death)?

If you want to prevent the devaluation of human life, we should burn all the research conducted by Linda Gottfredson, Arthur Jensen, Richard Herrnstein, Charles Murray, J. Phillipe Rushton, and Richard Lynn because this data promotes eugenics. I wished I never read their work.

So, I think suppressing intelligence research does not hurt society (contra Gottfredson). It is better that some knowledge remains secret.

Do you have any solutions to the problems highlighted by the aforementioned people without recourse to eugenics? N.B. I choose my sig while I was reading The Mismeasure of Man, but it seems likely that people are poor because of their genes, not and it is not explained by a poor environment. So, I might sound like a hypocrite now, but I should change my sig?

 

[ribozyme]

In addition to birth control, we now have abortion-on-demand, rap music praising the rape of women, TV and movies which glorify sexuality of women, and on and on. Just as birth control had an effect on society by cheapening human life , allowing abortions, exploitation of embryos for scientific analysis, and eugenics will further this cheapening of human life.

I don’t follow you. What horrid acts are committed if humans are allowed to live from point A (conception) to point Z (natural death)?

If you want to prevent the devaluation of human life, we should burn all the research conducted by Linda Gottfredson, Arthur Jensen, Richard Herrnstein, Charles Murray, J. Phillipe Rushton, and Richard Lynn because this data promotes eugenics. I wished I never read their work.

So, I think suppressing intelligence research does not hurt society (contra Gottfredson). It is better that some knowledge remains secret.

 

[Larry1700]

If you want to prevent the devaluation of human life, we should burn all the research conducted by Linda Gottfredson, Arthur Jensen, Richard Herrnstein, Charles Murray, J. Phillipe Rushton, and Richard Lynn because this data promotes eugenics. I wished I never read their work.

So, I think suppressing intelligence research does not hurt society (contra Gottfredson). It is better that some knowledge remains secret.

Well, as much as I’d like to, I don’t think making such research secret or banning such research is the solution. Knowledge is not inherently right or wrong, but how it is obtained and used. Matches and guns aren’t inherently good or evil, but can be used for good or evil purposes.

Do you have any solutions to the problems highlighted by the aforementioned people without recourse to eugenics?

I believe the answer is to change people’s hearts towards love of God and their fellow man. Not an easy or quick answer, but you can see througout history how devices/knowledge previously used for good were usurped by someone for an evil purpose. If more people were focused on using research to help their neighbor, instead of for gaining power or making money, it would be a step in the right direction.

Knowledge such as Gottfredson’s might be used for targeted approaches to education. I don’t mean deny someone education because it is assumed they can’t understand something, but perhaps to understand why certain educational techniques work well for some and not others. A simplistic analogy is when a teacher is teaching a group of students, it is helpful to determine what each of the students already know well before moving ahead in the curriculum. Another analogy is that some learn better by hearing, some by seeing, and some by doing.

By no means should we assume that someone can never learn or do something because of their genetic makeup or environment. There are many quadriplegics who have accomplished great things, there are several short basketball players who have excelled in the NBA, etc., etc., etc.

Again, compassion and love for every human should be the ultimate goal. You’re a great example. You read the books, and because of your love and compassion, you clearly see that the proposed use of Gottfredson’s knowledge is wrong, and you having taken it upon yourself to warn others about it. There will always be good and evil doing battle in this world, and you have decided to be a warrior for the good. With your knowledge of the subject, perhaps you will always be a voice of reason when the topic arises, and thereby change the hearts of others.

N.B. I choose my sig while I was reading The Mismeasure of Man, but it seems likely that people are poor because of their genes, not and it is not explained by a poor environment. So, I might sound like a hypocrite now, but I should change my sig?

I think the signature should reflect your current attitudes/beliefs. I’m thinking about making mine “So many books, so little time!”, because I have a long list of books I’d like to read on many different topics, and only have the time to finish one every couple of months.

 

[Academic]

If you want to prevent the devaluation of human life, we should burn all the research conducted by Linda Gottfredson, Arthur Jensen, Richard Herrnstein, Charles Murray, J. Phillipe Rushton, and Richard Lynn because this data promotes eugenics.

I think it’s the first time I’ve seen someone explicitly promote burning of research material, with the motivation that humanity is better off with lies! I mean, there are plenty of censors out there, but they usually try to hide it…

No, ribozyme, you are on the wrong track. We should not burn these interesting studies (even if we could!); we should on the contrary spread these important results so that they become more known, to ordinary people and to shakers and movers.

The body of research you refer to demonstrates that there this is little doubt that there are real, quite large and partly genetically determined differences in general intelligence between ethnic groups, and that these differences are likely to be an important causal factor behind the ethnic differences in degree of civilization (broadly speaking) we all can observe.

This is important research! It has immediate theoretical interest, because it means interracial comparisons of neural correlates of intelligence can illuminate the evolution of intelligence in our species. More practically it serves as an important antidote to common myths that I think influence policy in a self-destructive way in Western high-cultures:

(i) That the failure of e.g. central african countries to develop or maintain any kind of higher technology, medicine and culture is our fault (through colonization).
(ii) That the failure of immigrants from these nations to adapt successfully to Western civilization (in contrast e.g. to immigrants from East Asia) is our fault.

The general point is of course that we will have little chance to solve social problems if we burn research that shows their true roots! Specifically, there is no way we can solve problems related to intelligence differences, including ethnic intelligence differences, unless we study their genetic underpinnings. And, sure, eugenics would probably be one of the more powerful - albeit not the only - method to help Africa (Unless of course these groups return to the kind of life they lived before meeting Western civilization, and which they are biologically adapted to - but that seems irrealistic in a globalized world.)

 

[Academic]

Knowledge such as Gottfredson’s might be used for targeted approaches to education. I don’t mean deny someone education because it is assumed they can’t understand something, but perhaps to understand why certain educational techniques work well for some and not others. A simplistic analogy is when a teacher is teaching a group of students, it is helpful to determine what each of the students already know well before moving ahead in the curriculum. Another analogy is that some learn better by hearing, some by seeing, and some by doing.

Yes. This is true, and I believe Gottfredson is interested in career counseling. In fact, high intelligence is particularly important for jobs that require abstract thinking and/or a lot of flexibility, problem solving and independent decision making. There are plenty of simpler jobs that even people with low intelligence can reach a high level of expertise in, with extensive training, and where other traits than intelligence are surely much more important. The problem when we discuss populations, is of course that a good supply of people being able to perform high-IQ demanding jobs is essential for higher civilization.

By no means should we assume that someone can never learn or do something because of their genetic makeup or environment. There are many quadriplegics who have accomplished great things, there are several short basketball players who have excelled in the NBA, etc., etc., etc.

I don’t think it make sense to pretend that someone with an IQ of 80 could become a successful engineer. There may be some differences in “learning style” but all studies show these matter marginally compared differences in general ability.

Again, compassion and love for every human should be the ultimate goal. You’re a great example.

I agree that this is one major goal, but I also value the highest products in the arts and sciences.

 

[ribozyme]

No, ribozyme, you are on the wrong track. We should not burn these interesting studies (even if we could!); we should on the contrary spread these important results so that they become more known, to ordinary people and to shakers and movers.

I think that in the short-term, humanity would be better off with lies. Eventually, we would have to confront this unpleasant issue. Dereliction to the scientific method will eventually harm us.

I just do not want the public to react to this research with mass hysteria. I cannot live with inequality, and I want to reduce it! In order to reduce it we have to significantly alter allele frequencies in populations.

The body of research you refer to demonstrates that there this is little doubt that there are real, quite large and partly genetically determined differences in general intelligence between ethnic groups, and that these differences are likely to be an important causal factor behind the ethnic differences in degree of civilization (broadly speaking) we all can observe.

The general point is of course that we will have little chance to solve social problems if we burn research that shows their true roots! Specifically, there is no way we can solve problems related to intelligence differences, including ethnic intelligence differences, unless we study their genetic underpinnings. And, sure, eugenics would probably be one of the more powerful - albeit not the only - method to help Africa (Unless of course these groups return to the kind of life they lived before meeting Western civilization, and which they are biologically adapted to - but that seems irrealistic in a globalized world.)

I agree that we have to delve into the molecular level to elucidate the nature of these differences. If we cannot do this, I do not see how embryo selection would be effective to rectify this problem. Embryo selection is particularly potent as it ruthlessly selects on the genotypic level, in contrast classic eugenics selects discriminates based on phenotype of the parents. In order to establish an egalitarian utopia, we need to significantly reduce innate differences in cognitive ability.

Lynn cites the *narrow heritability * of intelligence (i.e. accountable to the effects of additive genes) is .71, while *broad heritability * is .09 (accountable to dominant and recessive genes). (Lynn 2001: 156).

The formula Lynn cites to estimate the average IQ of a population under various selection programs is:

x1 = x - mh^2 + m

x1 = mean of the 1st generation; x = mean of parents; h^2 = narrow heritability (Lynn uses h^2 = .71)

Actually, the formula is x1 = (x - m)h^2 + m (Lynn did not write the formula correctly).

Now, let’s apply this formula to explore the efficacy of various eugenics programs. If we sterilize all mentally retarded (2 standard deviations below the mean), this raises the average IQ of the population to about 101. The next generation’s IQ would be raised to 100.77. A more stringent program allowing only the top quartile to reproduce (minimum IQ ~ 110; average IQ of top quartile ~ 118) yields an average IQ of the second generation of ~ 112.8. For a hypothetical scenario of using artificial insemination, let’s suppose sperm from a donor has an IQ of 145 (3 standard deviations above the mean) and the person being inseminated by this sperm has an IQ of 100. Applying the formula yields a average IQ of the progeny to be about 116).

Tautologically, the average IQ of a population is 100 (well, using today’s norms at least).

Now let’s evaluate the negative facets of these three scenarios: The first does not offer significant gains in the short term; the second scenario is impractical as it involves mass sterilizations (but it has decent gains); the third scenario has notable gains but by tautological definition an IQ of 145 is quite rare thus cannot be used on a population. It is clear that embryo selection is the preferred route for a eugenics program as it can be utilized by most parents, provides significant gains (about one standard deviation per generation) and does not depend on significant contributions from the genetically elite. Again, the prerequisite for embryo selection is the luculent knowledge of this phenomenon in molecular detail.

Genetic engineering has some insurmountable ethical hurdles (using a human for experimental purposes and it might endanger the quality of life on the subject if it was allowed to develop), and it might not be cost effective (and it will probably only be utilized by the wealthy).

 

[JimG]

I cannot live with inequality, and I want to reduce it! In order to reduce it we have to significantly alter allele frequencies in populations.

You cannot live with inequality? Just what type of inequality can you not live with? Intellectual inequality only? Athletic inequality? Artistic inequality? If you have siblings, are they all the same as you? Perhaps to achieve perfect equality, you might want to engineer just one perfect human and then clone it repeatedly.

Of course, then you would have economic inequality and social inequality to deal with, unless you simultaneously changed the governments, economic systems, and living conditions all over the world.

 

[ribozyme]

You cannot live with inequality? Just what type of inequality can you not live with? Intellectual inequality only? Athletic inequality? Artistic inequality? If you have siblings, are they all the same as you? Perhaps to achieve perfect equality, you might want to engineer just one perfect human and then clone it repeatedly.

Of course, then you would have economic inequality and social inequality to deal with, unless you simultaneously changed the governments, economic systems, and living conditions all over the world.

Murray, Herrnstein, Gottfredson, and Jensen argue that differences in g profoundly affect one’s socioeconomic outcome (and educational accomplishments, social status) more than athletic ability, artistic ability, physical appearance, etc. g is also negatively correlated with unemployment, criminality, having illegitmate children, and welfare dependency. So it seems reasonable that eliminating differences in g would diminish inequalities in the aforementioned aspects of life. But it would not eradicate these differences; intuitively, other aspects might result in different outcomes such as conscientiousness and perseverance.

Diversity, of course, is necessary, but I just do find the disparities on the g factor distasteful.

 

[kell0618]

Who did Christ choose for his Disciples? Were they the best and the brightest? Who did God the Father choose to use in the our family tree? Every single person is a gift from God and we are not qualified to do the ‘thinking’ for Him. If God expected perfection, perhaps He would not have created humans in the first place.

 

[JimG]

I don’t know about that. Not to name names, but looking at some of the richest people in the world, from rock musicians to hip hop singers, to TV personalities, to politicians, none of them seem real smart to me. So how does that g tie in?

 

[ribozyme]

Who did Christ choose for his Disciples? Were they the best and the brightest? Who did God the Father choose to use in the our family tree? Every single person is a gift from God and we are not qualified to do the ‘thinking’ for Him. If God expected perfection, perhaps He would not have created humans in the first place.

No, I do not have siblings… maybe that’s why I am freak .

What do you mean “created humans”? I think humans are the product of a dysteleological process and we are created not be a benevolent numinous entity, but by the blind watchmaker. Indeed, Richard Lynn argues that human intelligence evolved when our ancestors were faced with surviving in difficult environments. Our intelligence is a product of a 3.8 billion years of iterative Darwinian evolution.

I don’t know about that. Not to name names, but looking at some of the richest people in the world, from rock musicians to hip hop singers, to TV personalities, to politicians, none of them seem real smart to me. So how does that g tie in?

I remember watching a NOVA episode that had appearances from Brian Greene and Leonard Susskind.

 

[Academic]

I don’t know about that. Not to name names, but looking at some of the richest people in the world, from rock musicians to hip hop singers, to TV personalities, to politicians, none of them seem real smart to me. So how does that g tie in?

I think the answer is just that large-scale studies show without any doubt that in the general population g is related to socioeconomic status, as ribozyme says. However, there is plenty of variance in socioeconomic status which is not explained by g, and the importance of g varies between domains, so there always be a lot of striking exceptions of the kind you mention.

 

[Academic]

Murray, Herrnstein, Gottfredson, and Jensen argue that differences in g profoundly affect one’s socioeconomic outcome (and educational accomplishments, social status) more than athletic ability, artistic ability, physical appearance, etc. g is also negatively correlated with unemployment, criminality, having illegitmate children, and welfare dependency. So it seems reasonable that eliminating differences in g would diminish inequalities in the aforementioned aspects of life. But it would not eradicate these differences; intuitively, other aspects might result in different outcomes such as conscientiousness and perseverance.

Diversity, of course, is necessary, but I just do find the disparities on the g factor distasteful.

Well, I think too that we need less low-g people in an advanced society, and if we could get rid of the low end where the social problems accumulate it would be great. But there will always be a need for “simpler” jobs that don’t require high g, but probably other social and motor skills which not all high-g people have. Having different strata in society, with different abilities and functions, is completely natural. Name one high culture which wasn’t stratified! Your idea about equality in outcome seems out of touch with how human societies work and strangely exaggerated to me. The important thing is that people feel satisfied and happy with what they do.

So I think Lynn is going too far when he suggests that we should aim at a mean IQ of 200 (!). The important thing is to shift the distribution rightwards and reduce the left tail drastically.

 

[ribozyme]

Well, I think too that we need less low-g people in an advanced society, and if we could get rid of the low end where the social problems accumulate it would be great. But there will always be a need for “simpler” jobs that don’t require high g, but probably other social and motor skills which not all high-g people have. Having different strata in society, with different abilities and functions, is completely natural. Name one high culture which wasn’t stratified!

The only reason that such societies do not exist is because of cognitive stratification. This is why Karl Marx’s magnanimous idea of a classless society would not work in this world. It does not follow to say that the failure of such societies means that they would never work. I object by noting that the prerequisites for the formation of these societies are not currently satisfied. I do not find the idea of a society where people of low g are going to be exploited for surplus value appealing.

I think we could live without the indignity of McJobs in such a society. I do agree that different aptitudes are necessary for a society to function though, but we should not attempt to diminish people’s dignity. We should leave the Big 5 untouched (maybe with the exception of conscientiousness) and allow chance to determine the distribution of spatial, verbal, and mathematical aptitudes (although g is positively correlated with these aptitudes, it is not perfectly correlated with them).

Your idea about equality in outcome seems out of touch with how human societies work and strangely exaggerated to me. The important thing is that people feel satisfied and happy with what they do.

So do you want a society with Epsilon Minuses who have been manipulated to be content with their miserable condition (e.g. with soma)? Utility, not happiness is our goal.

Now it is an unquestionable fact that those who are equally acquainted with, and equally capable of appreciating and enjoying, both, do give a most marked preference to the manner of existence which employs their higher faculties. Few human creatures would consent to be changed into any of the lower animals, for a promise of the fullest allowance of a beast’s pleasures; no intelligent human being would consent to be a fool, no instructed person would be an ignoramus, no person of feeling and conscience would be selfish and base, even though they should be persuaded that the fool, the dunce, or the rascal is better satisfied with his lot than they are with theirs. They would not resign what they possess more than he for the most complete satisfaction of all the desires which they have in common with him…

A being of higher faculties requires more to make him happy, is capable probably of more acute suffering, and certainly accessible to it at more points, than one of an inferior type; but in spite of these liabilities, he can never really wish to sink into what he feels to be a lower grade of existence. We may give what explanation we please of this unwillingness;… but its most appropriate appellation is a sense of dignity, which all human beings possess in one form or other, and in some, though by no means in exact, proportion to their higher faculties, and which is so essential a part of the happiness of those in whom it is strong, that nothing which conflicts with it could be, otherwise than momentarily, an object of desire to them.

** It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, are a different opinion, it is because they only know their own side of the question. The other party to the comparison knows both sides.**

utilitarianism.com/mill2.htm

 

[ribozyme]

Lynn offers these objections:

1.) With a highly intelligent population, people can be paid whatever is necessary to do the hundrum jobs that needed to be done. If too few people wanted to do cognitively undemanding work, they could be induced to do so if these jobs were sufficently remunerative. The law of supply and demand would still hold, just as it does now, such that a salary would naturally increase to the point at which someone was willing to take the job.

2.) In the extremely unlikely event tht even high salaries failed to produce sufficent people to do certain unattractive jobs, there could br a requirement that citizens perform a certain amount of community work, analagous to the military conscription that many countries now have. This would not be unethical or an intolerable burden. The Western democracies require their citizens to serve in the military and risk their lives in times of war; so it is difficult to raise any objection to their being required to devote a few hours a week to doing such jobs such as cleaning the streets or collecting the garbage, which no one wants to do. (Lynn 2001: 96)

 

[JimG]

Lynn offers these objections:

Sounds like a good plot line for an SF novel. In fact it may have already been done. The highest paid jobs in this future society would be the McJobs! Or alternatively, the all powerful government would draft people to pick up the trash and serve the hamburgers!

As a side note, who says these jobs are unattractive? Many people might at times just want a job that doesn’t require a lot of mental effort.

 

[Larry1700]

As a side note, who says these jobs are unattractive? Many people might at times just want a job that doesn’t require a lot of mental effort.

Excellent point, JimG! For 15 years I worked in the Marketing Dept for an aircraft parts manufacturer. Because of the deadline-sensitive nature of aircraft parts (if a plane ain’t flyin’, it ain’t producin’ revenue), it was a VERY high-pressure job, and we worked lots of overtime to try to satisfy the customers. I did a mid-life career change, and am now a sleep technologist. The pay is less, but so is the pressure, and the fulfillment is far better.