Richard Lynn and hope for the future

[ribozyme]

rlynn.co.uk/

I used to revile and malign Richard Lynn; however, one must respect his candor on taboo topics such as race, intelligence, and eugenics. In contrast, I do think he does not appreciate the extent that his views threaten the ideals of social justice. Also, this post is not intended to be a hagiography of Richard Lynn.

If we acknowledge Professor Lynn’s views on intelligence, we have to relinquish our hope that we can fix many of the world’s maladies in a facile fashion such as poverty and social inequality because they are caused by an inveterate, genetic cause. Most of you might react to this with umbrage but I was inebriated with the feelings of dispair and hopelessness until I read Eugenics: A Reassessment (by Professor Lynn). In* Eugenics*, he discusses several methods to increase intelligence via eugenic intervention (e.g. abortions targeted to the lower classes, contraception and sex education for them, incentives for fecund educated parents, sterilization of the mentally retarded, etc.) Needless to say, I think these methods will not provide significant gains for the primary trait eugenicists seek to augment: intelligence. In addition, I do not advocate these methods because I find them immoral.

In contrast, Lynn argues that the revival of eugenics will be inevitable and new reproductive technologies (he focuses on embryo selection) will allow humanity to control their own genetic destiny. Embryo selection is rather attractive because it provides a one standard deviation boost in intelligence for each generation (eventually intelligence will be maxed out so embryo selection cannot be used forever for this purpose). I found Lynn’s discussions in the concluding chapters of *Eugenics *invigorating as I am discontented with the present state of human nature and I acknowledge that this technology can be used to rectify this. A desirable outcome of the application of this technology would be the elimination of individual and group disparities on the g factor

So what do you place your hope in? Do you perceive Richard Lynn’s vision for the future with despair? I must add that I believe we only live one life and it is here on Earth. You do not have any incentive to embrace Richard Lynn’s ideas because you believe that all injustices will be corrected by God in an intangible realm. Thus, you are content with the current status quo and do not seek to modify it. However, I am not content with the status quo, I see eugenics as a means to alter it. If I acknowledge a hereditary cause for social maladies such as poverty, I do not have recourse to a religious belief system, thus I am forced to ameliorate this by advocating methods that can decrease the frequency of these deleterious alleles. Since intelligence is hereditary, there is no magical nostrum or incantation that will increase it, so eugenics is the only option if one seeks to increase it permanently. (If you disagree, post your objections)

Maybe Richard Lynn’s ideas will be used to form a classless egalitarian utopia. Alternatively, it is also possible it can initiate a dystopian outcome where the “genetically superior” subjugate those who are “inferior” (In Eugenics, Lynn considers the possibility that China will do this).

No, this is not an apology of eugenics or any other ideas from Richard Lynn, and I do not expect anyone here to embrace it because of the aforementioned reasons (e.g. being content with the status quo and the hope of the afterlife). The topic primarily concerns hope for the future of humanity, not whether Lynn’s ideas are moral.

 

[JimG]

Somehow I don’t think that IQ is the answer to all problems. Is the United States a good place to live because everyone here happens to be smarter than elsewhere? I doubt it. Does IQ explain the difference in economic conditions between the U.S. and some emerging—or not emerging—third world country? I don’t think so. Mostly it has to do with economic and political freedom and political structures which allow for enterprise. Some ideologies repress the spirit, and kill the soul as well as the body. Witness Russia under Stalin, Cambodia under Pol Pot; the 20th century is replete with examples. Would eugenics have helped Marxist USSR? Would it have improved Uganda under Idi Amin? Well yes, it might have provided more efficiently for a few million more deaths. They practiced eugenics at the adult level, after all.

So no, I don’t think eugenics is a help for despair or hopelessness; it takes a good woman for that, preferably one with a good heart and a magnanimous soul. That would be my goal, rather than IQ.

 

[puzzleannie]

rlynn.co.uk/

I used to revile and malign Richard Lynn; however, one must respect his candor on taboo topics such as race, intelligence, and eugenics. In contrast, I do think he does not appreciate the extent that his views threaten the ideals of social justice. Also, this post is not intended to be a hagiography of Richard Lynn.
l.

no I do not have to admire as “candor” the promotion by someone who ought to know better of morally reprehensible ideas through bad science. No one who claims to be a scientist has the right to pervert logic and reason to puch such an agenda. I think he appreciates exactly what he is doing and promoting and why and does not give 2 hoots about social justice, although he would like very much to sell books.

 

[djrakowski]

You do not have any incentive to embrace Richard Lynn’s ideas because you believe that all injustices will be corrected by God in an intangible realm. Thus, you are content with the current status quo and do not seek to modify it.

Hogwash. The Catholic Church is one of the world’s largest contributors of social aide in under-developed areas of the world. We aren’t content with leaving the problems of today for future generations, because we are commanded by scripture and tradition to follow the model of Christ and seek to alleviate suffering on this side of eternity.

This view of yours is dangerously close to being anti-Catholic, but I suspect it is just ignorant. Take time to find out what we really believe before implicitly criticizing us for our lack of compassion toward the evils and suffering of this world - an accusation you’ve made with absolutely no evidence to support it.

We do not have any incentive to embrace the ideas of Richard Lynn because they involve eugenics, which is the process of selecting which human beings are worthy of life, as well as robbing individuals of the right of life simply because they do not not pass through some arbitrary filter of potential future intelligence. It has nothing to do with waiting for injustice to be cured by Jesus at some future date, but rather, with the value of each and every human being ever created apart from intelligence and future achievement.

There’s also nothing to stop some of these incredibly intelligent humans you want to favor from becoming horribly evil and committing great atrocities. What is there to prevent, for example, more Hitlers, Saddam Husseins or Kim Jong-Ils? Intelligence is certainly not a bulwark against great evil.

 

[ribozyme]

no I do not have to admire as “candor” the promotion by someone who ought to know better of morally reprehensible ideas through bad science. No one who claims to be a scientist has the right to pervert logic and reason to puch such an agenda. I think he appreciates exactly what he is doing and promoting and why and does not give 2 hoots about social justice, although he would like very much to sell books.

I must add that people such as Linda Gottfredson, J. Philippe Rushton, Richard Lynn, Charles Murray, and Richard Herrnstein destroy my previously held sentiments on human equality. I felt rather dejected when I acknowledged the veracity of their work.

Maybe Lynn’s ideas might be used to pursue this.

 

[ribozyme]

Somehow I don’t think that IQ is the answer to all problems. Is the United States a good place to live because everyone here happens to be smarter than elsewhere? I doubt it. Does IQ explain the difference in economic conditions between the U.S. and some emerging—or not emerging—third world country? I don’t think so. Mostly it has to do with economic and political freedom and political structures which allow for enterprise. Some ideologies repress the spirit, and kill the soul as well as the body. Witness Russia under Stalin, Cambodia under Pol Pot; the 20th century is replete with examples. Would eugenics have helped Marxist USSR? Would it have improved Uganda under Idi Amin? Well yes, it might have provided more efficiently for a few million more deaths. They practiced eugenics at the adult level, after all.

So no, I don’t think eugenics is a help for despair or hopelessness; it takes a good woman for that, preferably one with a good heart and a magnanimous soul. That would be my goal, rather than IQ.

So what do you think of the thesis of this book: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_Global_Inequality

This view of yours is dangerously close to being anti-Catholic, but I suspect it is just ignorant. Take time to find out what we really believe before implicitly criticizing us for our lack of compassion toward the evils and suffering of this world - an accusation you’ve made with absolutely no evidence to support it.

We do not have any incentive to embrace the ideas of Richard Lynn because they involve eugenics, which is the process of selecting which human beings are worthy of life, as well as robbing individuals of the right of life simply because they do not not pass through some arbitrary filter of potential future intelligence. It has nothing to do with waiting for injustice to be cured by Jesus at some future date, but rather, with the value of each and every human being ever created apart from intelligence and future achievement.

Unfortunately, I have been exposed to several papers that have destroyed my spirit and left me rather bitter. I think Richard Lynn’s ideas have to potential to rectify many injustices on the human species.

I find it hard for myself to resist a method that can PERMANENTLY increase intelligence by one standard deviation per generation. One the changes have been made, they are indelible.

I did not critize anyone for lack of compassion, I am just pointing out that one who embraces a personal God does not have to embrace such ideas because they trust God. However, people such as myself and Richard Lynn do not have this trust and we believe humans are merely a product of nature.