Catholic Eugenics?

[vern_humphrey]

That’s a vulgar lie. Where did I ever say that?

My views on eugenics are surely “controversial” or at least shared by few. But what I said about human rights is completely mainstream - it’s your views that are extreme. All I’ve been saying is that in vitro fertilized embryos can’t be compared to human beings ethically speaking. Most informed people agree.

If all living human beings do not have a right to life, then there is no right to life. If “society” or the government decides to whom and when the privilige of life is granted, then “society” or the government can decide some people never get it.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I mean, this is just a bizarre statement: We have to state that all objects have property X, because if we admit that one object lacks property X then tomorrow someone might say that all objects lack property X. What are you smoking my friend?

We’re not talking about “objects,” we’re talking about living human beings. If “society” or the government can decide when the right to life is granted, it isn’t a right at all, just a privilige. What “society” or the government can grant, it can withhold.

Either we all have the right to life as a necessary part of our human condition or it isn’t a right.

 

[Academic]

As someone with a family history of mental illness and whose relatives were murdered at the hands of eugenicists (Nazis, because they were Jewish), I find the whole concept offensive.

I have many Jewish friends, and they have no problem distinguishing Hitler’s murders from the kind of eugenics I support. It’s your equating the two which is offensive.

Also, the idea that “that’s the reason they’re impoverished” is a bunch of BS. Both sides of my family have fought hard and succeeded in overcoming poverty.

We can argue about how much race differences in intelligence are genetical, because that question can’t be addressed directly with twin designs. However, twin studies do provide conclusive evidence for a substantial genetical component in social class differences. This is denied by noone who knows the data. IQ is one relevant factor, but in addition you will have traits like motivation, impulsivity, conscientiousness and working ability - all of which have a sizeable genetical component. The fact that there are many individuals who succeed admirably although they grew up in difficult circumstances is completely consistent with this general picture: we’re talking statistics, not anechdotes.

Skin color and ethnic background don’t determine IQ points.

Noone said they do.

 

[Academic]

We’re not talking about “objects,” we’re talking about living human beings. If “society” or the government can decide when the right to life is granted, it isn’t a right at all, just a privilige. What “society” or the government can grant, it can withhold.

Either we all have the right to life as a necessary part of our human condition or it isn’t a right.

It’s very tiring that you almost without exception manage to miss the point in my postings. You seem to say that unless we give full human rights to all fertilized egg cells in the world, then noone has human rights. I think my 8 year old daughter could see what’s wrong with that proposal.

 

[vern_humphrey]

It’s very tiring that you almost without exception manage to miss the point in my postings.

I don’t miss the point of your postings – you want to deny the humanity of a whole class, and to categorize other humans as “inferior” and to be bred out of existance.

And you’re quite willing to destroy the very concept of human rights in the process.

You seem to say that unless we give full human rights to all fertilized egg cells in the world, then noone has human rights. I think my 8 year old daughter could see what’s wrong with that proposal.

I find that when young children learn they could have been killed before birth, they tend to see what’s wrong with your proposal.

 

[Academic]

I’ve read his writings and those of his supporters – the intent seems to me more like that of a little boy in a schoolyard saying, “Nyah, nyah, these people agree with me!”

In fact, there seems to be a heavy emphasis on the vertical pronoun in his work and a general aroma of paranoia in the whole clique.

She is called Linda Gottfredson, which you would have discovered if you read a single paper by her. Many of these researchers have suffered a lot from attacks from the politically correct, so I think it’s understandable if they sometimes are a bit emotional. But even when that is true, why is that important? The only thing which counts is the data.

There is complete consensus about quite a few things I’ve said here, in particular the high heritability of intelligence and the fact that we have substantial race differences in IQ which are not due to test bias. People disagree about the extent to which the latter differences are due to genetic and non-genetic factors, but if one reads the literature it’s pretty clear by now that the heriditarian camp has by far the strongest arguments.

 

[ribozyme]

I have many Jewish friends, and they have no problem distinguishing Hitler’s murders from the kind of eugenics I support. It’s your equating the two which is offensive.

What eugenics do you support? I do not support any eugenics program that has the potential to form a caste society. We should eliminate inequality.

Could you tell me the methods that you support for this? Subsidizing the wealthy is hampered by regression to the mean. I favor embryo selection as it is not subject to this and it offers a one standard deviation boost in a single generation. In two generation many social problems would be dramatically reduced. In four generations, most people would possess the cognitive ability to understand the more abtruse and esoterical disciplines of science such as particle physics.

The paucity of *g *would not hinder anyone to follow their aspirations in this society!!! That is freedom!! If this eugenics program would inevitably destroy society because no one would be left to do the hundrum work, so be it!! I prefer that than having to deal with social inequality!!

 

[Academic]

I will reiterate a previous post in this thread:

I disliked reading The Bell Curve because it dehumanized those who have low intelligences are carriers of “defective genes” and a hereditary threat to society because they can pass their “defective genes” to future generations. *The Bell Curve *is an assault on the concept of human dignity.

Ribozyme, I think you need to separate ideology and values from value-free science more clearly in your thinking. All studies show that the variation in adult intelligence among typical families in contemporary Western societies is essentially (70-80%) genetically determined.

Given that, there are really only two main alternatives: First, to accept that, as we accept any other scientific truth, and to draw the consequences. Second, to deny or ignore the truth, lie to ourselves and other people, for the purpose of being able to indulge in reality-denying fantasies which make us feel good.

You find human dignity important. So do I. But surely there must be something wrong with an idea of dignity which requires that we deny facts of life! What could be more insulting to the idea of human dignity than the second option above? You are a smart guy, but I think you should resolve these disturbing cognitive dissonances you suffer from.

 

[Academic]

What eugenics do you support? I do not support any eugenics program that has the potential to form a caste society. We should eliminate inequality.

Could you tell me the methods that you support for this? Subsidizing the wealthy is hampered by regression to the mean. I favor embryo selection as it is not subject to this and it offers a one standard deviation boost in a single generation. In two generation many social problems would be dramatically reduced. In four generations, most people would possess the cognitive ability to understand the more abtruse and esoterical disciplines of science such as particle physics.

The paucity of *g *would not hinder anyone to follow their aspirations in this society!!! That is freedom!! If this eugenics program would inevitably destroy society because no one would be left to do the hundrum work, so be it!! I prefer that than having to deal with social inequality!!

It’s an interesting vision. I need to get some sleep, but - in brief - I can say that I care much less with equality than you do. I think we need both high g people and people who happily do simpler jobs.

 

[vern_humphrey]

She is called Linda Gottfredson, which you would have discovered if you read a single paper by her. Many of these researchers have suffered a lot from attacks from the politically correct, so I think it’s understandable if they sometimes are a bit emotional. But even when that is true, why is that important? The only thing which counts is the data.

My apologies – after her spit-spewing defense of Lynn, I got coinfused.

There is complete consensus about quite a few things I’ve said here, in particular the high heritability of intelligence and the fact that we have substantial race differences in IQ which are not due to test bias. People disagree about the extent to which the latter differences are due to genetic and non-genetic factors, but if one reads the literature it’s pretty clear by now that the heriditarian camp has by far the strongest arguments.

Which justifies breeding some races our of existance, controling other people’s breeding with complete totalitarian rtyranny, and denying the right to life?

 

[ribozyme]

It’s an interesting vision. I need to get some sleep, but - in brief - I can say that I care much less with equality than you do. I think we need both high g people and people who happily do simpler jobs.

Whatever! Given that I count myself as a “low g” person I am content with my own innate intellectual limitations as I enjoy reading textbooks about the “low g” sciences such as Biochemistry (Berg, Tymoczko, and Stryer) and Molecular Biology of the Cell (Alberts* et al.)*. I suppose everyone can’t be a Brian Greene or Lisa Randall.

People with “low g” can occupy a job with dignity. I do not consider “waiter” or and other “McJobs” one of those jobs. I suppose one who acquires a lamentable low score on a test similar to the Advanced Progressive Matrices that is two standard deviations above the mean can occupy a “low g” job that has high dignity. I want to be a molecular biologist.

 

[cpayne]

I mean, this is just a bizarre statement: We have to state that all objects have property X, because if we admit that one object lacks property X then tomorrow someone might say that all objects lack property X. What are you smoking my friend?

Nope, sorry, you missed V. Humphrey’s point. Let’s put an example in your misstatement of his position: “We have to say that all humans have red hair, because if we admit that one human lacks red hair, then tomorrow someone might say that all humans lack red hair.” That’s not what he’s saying.

A better example of his position might read something like this: “We have to maintain the human rights of all humans, because if we say that one human loses those human rights because of an arbitrary distinction, then tomorrow someone might expand that arbitrary distinction to include more humans in the list of the non-protected.” For example, if we deny human rights to a human because his IQ is below 80, then tomorrow someone might say we should deny those same rights to those whose IQ is below 93, and so on. (And I’m sure there would be a good “scientific” reason for the cut-off point being 93–until the cut-off point becomes 99, 101, etc.) Or the cut-off point could be a simple tendency: “reactionary, hyper-religious, anti-scientific thinking,” for example.

Really, you should be grateful for the protections. It’s always funny to me that people in favor of eugenics always say “we should” do this. What makes you sure you would be one of the “we” doing the eliminating, rather than one of the “them” being eliminated?

As for whether or not zygotes (as developing humans) deserve protections (and as for whether or not they are “persons”), that’s already been thrashed out on several other threads, hasn’t it?

 

[ribozyme]

Given that, there are really only two main alternatives: First, to accept that, as we accept any other scientific truth, and to draw the consequences. Second, to deny or ignore the truth, lie to ourselves and other people, for the purpose of being able to indulge in reality-denying fantasies which make us feel good.

You find human dignity important. So do I. But surely there must be something wrong with an idea of dignity which requires that we deny facts of life! What could be more insulting to the idea of human dignity than the second option above? You are a smart guy, but I think you should resolve these disturbing cognitive dissonances you suffer from.

I do believe the Black-White gap (one-standard deviation) to have be partly genetic. Although I haven’t read the literature as extensively as yourself, I read some of Rushton and Lynn’s papers.

I will concede that I used to “indulge in reality-denying fantasies which make us feel good” but since I was able to comprehend the content of the relevant papers, I found this extremely difficult and rather awkward. I cannot be intellectually dishonest to myself; I have read Gould, Kamin, Lewontin, and Rose, and I did not find their arguments convincing. Do you know why I am not a Roman Catholic? I am not capable of lying to myself and pretending that a communion wafer is a manifestation of the “Real Presence”. So the was inevitable that the wall of denial had to collapse.

I am able to show some of the evidence that convinced me (e.g. the black-white differences are strongly correlated (r = 0.48) to inbreeding depression scores. I do not know of any plausible cultural explanation that can explain the fact the inbreeding depression lowers scores on highly g-loaded tests such as the RSPM. I am capable of posting this evidence to Vern, but it would be a painfully heartrending experience for me because I desperately want to deny it.

I can add this about eugenics based on what I have read in Eugenics: A Reassessment: eugenics can be used for the purpose of human betterment and it would be ignorant to pretend that it is futile in this aspect (especially when one considers the advent of potential reproductive technologies). But one must ask, what do we have to sacrifice to achieve such a “magnanimous” end? In Eugenics, I could not discern a scintilla of compassion from Lynn for the less fortunate; Lynn views them as an unnecessary burden to society. Commendably, Lynn’s analysis is immensely empirical, but perhaps it is too empirical. We have to forsake human dignity for the purpose of human betterment; we have to sell our souls (“souls” is a metaphor for our compassion and empathy). But is this worth it?

I will conclude by posting this entry from* Eugenics*:

*"Several of the mothers reported that they would not have hesitated to have abortions if they had been told that their children would have been born with multiple handicaps. One of the mothers said:

I can’t see the point in putting oneself through the strain of having such a seriously handicapped child. I don’t believe that anyone with their hand on their heart is really willing. I can honestly also see the pressures it puts on society. It’s an enormous cost. The same resources could have been channeled elsewhere, so that others could have become well again. I don’t think it’s right to bring a handicapped child into the world if it’s unnecessary. (p. 142)

… What Brinchmann describes is the reality of the lives of parents who have to rear children with genetic disorders. It is a very different portrayal sometimes given by those who had not had this personal experience. (Lynn, 2001: pg 68).

Adopting eugenics forces one to relinquish the concept of inherent human dignity and adopt the same attitude as the aforementioned mother. I do not see anything that would inhibit me from adopting this attitude: I do not believe that humans are created in God’s image. Instead, I believe the Terran flora and fauna are a product of a contingent, dysteleological process and the species Homo sapiens is not an exception. I am aware of the power of the blind watchmaker by reading experiments of in vitro ribozyme evolution, and my knowledge of molecular biology and biochemistry is a testimony to the power of the blind watchmaker. It has the potential to evolve complex biochemical pathways (e.g. Calvin cycle, light dependent reactions, glycolysis, citric acid cycle ,oxidative phosphorylation, protein synthesis, protein degradation (via. ubiquitination and the 26S proteosome)), but it also generates HIV that is resistant to AZT and other drugs (e.g. other reverse transcriptase inhibitors and protease inhibitors) used in HAART and other unpleasant pathogens.

 

[RyanL]

Do you know why I am not a Roman Catholic?

You might be a little more considerate of the faith of those who host this site. Just a piece of free advice, if you want to stick around for a while.

Adopting eugenics forces one to relinquish the concept of inherent human dignity and adopt the same attitude as the aforementioned mother. I do not see anything that would inhibit me from adopting this attitude: I do not believe that humans are created in God’s image. Instead, I believe the Terran flora and fauna are a product of a contingent, dysteleological process and the species Homo sapiens is not an exception.

Here’s the deal:

If you want to deny metaphysics and say that we have no soul or ontological worth, that’s fine. But notice where it leaves you…

If we’re simply the result of a vast accumulation of physical stimuli, there’s no such thing as free will. If there’s no free will, intelligence is not important in the slightest.

It’s a series of biochemical reactions, nothing more.

It’s equally as significant as digestion, and it’s an irrationally arbitrary choice to value intelligence more than digestion.

More than this, if all we are is the sum of our parts, there’s no reason to value life at all. We’re simply atoms, in a complex series of motion-and-rest actions. Are the atoms which make up a rock (or a flat worm!) better than the atoms which make up a human? Don’t be daft! Of course not. Do atoms have rights if the aggregate in a particular way? What an absurd result! Is there such a thing as a “living” atom or a “dead” atom? No! So why do we claim that an aggregate suddenly becomes more than the sum of its parts? Irrational! It could only be so if metaphysics existed, but we have already decided a priori that it doesn’t!

So all this talk about intelligence as a significant factor in egalitarianism is pure rubbish and hogwash if there is no metaphysics. Vanity of vanities, all is vanity.

BUT…if there is a metaphysical reality, you have to come to grips with ontology. You have to deal with the dignity and worth of humans as such.

So far, the philosophical and jurisprudential underpinnings of both your and Academic’s thought regarding human rights is shamefully poor. Perhaps you should take a break from the science and give good old fashioned noodle-using a chance. Spend some quality time with Aristotle. You’ll be better for it.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[ribozyme]

You might be a little more considerate of the faith of those who host this site. Just a piece of free advice, if you want to stick around for a while.

…

God Bless,
RyanL

That was a terse summary of my own testimony, which can be found here: iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=163978

I also reposted it here and I have edited it for some grammatical mistakes as I make them frequently because I do not proofread my posts.

For example:

I do believe the Black-White gap (one-standard deviation) to have be partly genetic

“has to be” instead of “to have be” and “one standard deviation” does not need to hyphenated.
and

So the was inevitable that the wall of denial had to collapse.

“So it was” instead of “so the was”

That was merely my subjective perception of how I currently view the faith; I do not see how it is insulting. But, I should take your advice. I did not intend to insult anyone though. I thought it was in context with my bitter experience reading the race, heredity, and IQ literature.

If you want to deny metaphysics and say that we have no soul or ontological worth, that’s fine. But notice where it leaves you…

I do notice where it may leave me… I do know how it left Richard Lynn as I am reading* Eugenics*.

I am afraid I will lose my sense of compassion if I accept the ideas of Lynn, Rushton, Herrnstein, and Murray.

 

[Academic]

First, I think it’s very true that it would be rude to come here to a catholic forum and discuss, if you don’t respect the world view of your hosts. I do. I have great respect for catholicism and the church, and I’m interested in a dialogue with those catholics that strive for an intellectually coherent world view while at the same time taking their religious experiences and intuitions seriously.

You might be a little more considerate of the faith of those who host this site. Just a piece of free advice, if you want to stick around for a while.

If we’re simply the result of a vast accumulation of physical stimuli, there’s no such thing as free will.

I don’t think assuming that the mind is independent of the brain (a vastly complex physical system) makes it easier to give an intelligible account of free will…

If there’s no free will, intelligence is not important in the slightest.

Here I loose you completely. Intelligence is important because it’s associated with, and in many cases causally related to, a large number of valuable social outcomes. And that is true independently of what view we have of the nasty problem of free will.

It’s equally as significant as digestion, and it’s an irrationally arbitrary choice to value intelligence more than digestion.

Again, that’s just wrong for the reasons I outlined. It is not arbitrary to value advances in the theoretical and appliced sciences and the arts as something good. Intelligence is also, by the way, positively related to health and longevity and being able to function well in society in general (negative relation to crime and welfare dependance).

More than this, if all we are is the sum of our parts, there’s no reason to value life at all. We’re simply atoms, in a complex series of motion-and-rest actions. Are the atoms which make up a rock (or a flat worm!) better than the atoms which make up a human? Don’t be daft!

It’s not about the atoms themselves, it’s about how they are organized in an incredibly complex system in such a way that the system (the human) has the properties we value: to think, to feel, to love etc.

Of course not. Do atoms have rights if the aggregate in a particular way? What an absurd result! Is there such a thing as a “living” atom or a “dead” atom? No! So why do we claim that an aggregate suddenly becomes more than the sum of its parts? Irrational!

You should think a bit more about this…

So far, the philosophical and jurisprudential underpinnings of both your and Academic’s thought regarding human rights is shamefully poor.

I’m not convinced your understanding of the philosophical aspects of these issues is as profound as you imagine .

Perhaps you should take a break from the science and give good old fashioned noodle-using a chance. Spend some quality time with Aristotle.

Now, that is a nice suggestion!

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[Larry1700]

But how will they feel when they have no one to look down on anymore?

Again, simple. There will be a new set of criteria.

 

[Academic]

I am afraid I will lose my sense of compassion if I accept the ideas of Lynn, Rushton, Herrnstein, and Murray.

I don’t see why our sense of compassion should hang on that there are no genetical differences in valuable traits, at the individual or group levels. That is such a strange idea. My sense of compassion really has nothing to do with that. Don’t we all feel compassion with people who get hereditary diseases, for instance?

It’s important to emphasize that eugenics is about taking control over gene frequencies. It’s not about denigrating or attacking people. Everyone agrees that certain conditions are undesirable - that’s why we try to treat them once they are manifest. Eugenics, in addition, tries to prevent that these conditions will be as common in future generations.

I suspect that your feeling of guilt when discussing eugenics, is a kind of conditioning, a taboo effect. These can be very powerful: We have all been taught from an early age that eugenics was something the Nazi’s liked, that it is evil and above all that it is not something which respectable, nice people discuss openly. These mechanisms operate very strongly on a subconscious level in the psyche, and also get internalized of course. Garett Hardin expressed it well when he said, in effect: give yourself time; it takes several years to overcome the emotional effects of breaking a taboo. That is exactly my experience. When first studying this topic, I reacted as negatively as most people. But after gradually examining the arguments, and slowly getting used to thinking and talking about it, I got more used and my “internal taboo” started to dissolve.

 

[Academic]

Again, simple. There will be a new set of criteria.

What moral conceit! I can honestly tell you that the reason (well, as far as I can judge by introspection) that I endorse eugenics is that I want good for the future. From where do you have the idea that the driving force is that I want to look down on other people?! It’s about as polite and true as if I would call all catholics self-righteous bigots…

 

[Larry1700]

I already pointed out that there are strong reasons to say that people who loose their mental life through illness or accident still have full moral rights.

Thanks for the clarification.

A major difference is that these people (unlike embryos) once were persons, and thus will have strong emotional ties with friends and loved ones, who will never be able to cease to regard them as the persons they once were.

By this standard, at the moment an individual’s family and friends have died, or at least don’t care about that individual any more (i.e., no more “strong emotional ties”), then that individual ceases to have personhood status, and thus ceases to have moral rights. We could easily solve the homeless problem, couldn’t we?

might be undesirable social sideeffects from regarding coma victims as non-persons.

Even today, there’s apparently not enough of a stigma to avoid removing a person’s moral rights when they go into a coma.