Neodarwinism, Genetic Determinism and "Disgenics"
by JoyThere have been three blogs posted in the last couple of days harkening to the oft-repeated theme of the Neodarwinian Defense League of gross "imperfection" in the state and conditions of life on planet earth as reason for rejecting any notion of teleological design in life. [see If Only We Were Perfect by Mike, Intelligensia Illogica and Somebody's God Some 'Splainin' to do by bipod].
Leaving out specific referral and recourse to theological argument - which should not be considered a scientific defense of ID against the entirely theological 'imperfection' argument of DarwinDefenders, Exile from Groggs make a very good lead-in point in his response to "If Only We Were Perfect" - why it is that human beings should have an expectation that life should be anything other than what it is?
It might be tempting to say that staunch DDs of the evangelical atheist/philosophical materialist variety are simply projecting their own psychological shadows into the discussion. Using the reasons they personally decided NOT to believe in benevolent deity/ies to argue against the religious scarecrow of ID-as-Creationism. Meaning these people should understand without having to be so often reminded that the argument to 'imperfection' is scientifically invalid. But oddly, enough, most who actually make the invalid argument don't appear to realize that it's invalid. Why is that?
I have begun some research into "modern" eugenics (as opposed to past research on good ol' well-discredited 19th/20th century eugenics that fell into disfavor after Nazi excesses). Neodarwinist visions of genetic determinism are even more easily applied today to our new, developing culture of victimization-by-genes and well serves the aims of neo-eugenicists to design a more comfortable world for the well-bred and well-designed elites of the future.
To this end Marian Van Court reviews Richard Lynn's 1996 book, "Disgenics: Genetic Deterioration in Modern Populations". She traces the movement designed to counter what Charles Darwin bemoaned as the fact that for human beings, Natural Selection had "ceased to operate" to keep the species 'fit'. And quotes Darwin's cousin Galton as 'eugenics' coiner and primary original proponent, suggesting that a recognition of the breakdown of NS in humanity necessitated the imposition of eugenics as "Moral Duty" -
Galton: "The chief result of these Inquiries has been to elicit the religious significance of the doctrine of evolution. It suggests an alteration in our mental attitude, and imposes a new moral duty. The new mental attitude is one of a greater sense of moral freedom, responsibility, and opportunity; the new duty… is to endeavor to further evolution, especially that of the human race."
"Disgenics" - the inevitable deterioration of human stock - is laid firmly by Lynn and Van Court to the knowledge and availability of contraception, which is availed primarily by the wealthy classes, while the "inferiors" continue to breed unchecked. Van Court even expands on the theological argument by introducing societal 'meddling' with who gets to live and who should be eliminated as "God's Will."
Matt Nuenke writes a review in "Pinc" [1998] of Roger Pearson's "Heredity and Humanity: Race, Eugenics and Modern Society" that does offer small challenge to the eugenicists' invisible new clothes in Pearson's exposition. Yet the arguments are still theological, and Pearson in fact lays blame for humanity's 'deteriorating' genetic state firmly at the feet of Christianity itself (thereby taking the theological argument back a couple of millennia beyond Darwin) -
Pearson: "The coming of Christianity plunged logic and classical philosophy into centuries of near-oblivion and clashed with the established and ancient European belief in the inequality of men. Spreading first among the slaves and lowest classes of the Roman empire, Christianity came to teach that all men were equal in the eyes of a universal Creator God, an idea that was totally alien to older European thought which had recognized a hierarchy of competence among men - and even among the gods."
Nuenke favors a more 'modern' method of improving the national IQ in 5 easy steps…
1. Ethnic scapegoating - "Every time a minority group accuses racist America for their shortcomings, we must proclaim loudly that the evidence shows that they are not as equipped genetically to excel. Until they can prove otherwise they must stop accusing others of racism for their underclass status."
2. Immigration restriction - "The best way to change this, and to show the public they are not bigots, is to encourage the immigration of Asians while discouraging Hispanics, to improve the Nation's average IQ (and of course rebuilding the Republican Party)."
3. Subject poor women to reproductive slavery - "It has always been known that the elite does not like to have their lives interrupted by bearing children, but may want to have children if someone else would bear them. This will increase the number of intelligent children while keeping the underclass from having low IQ babies as they carry someone else's. This will finally give many of these women something productive to do. Of course they will have to be watched carefully during pregnancy to make sure they don't harm the baby from their ignorance or from malice."
4. Tax incentives for more children, (to convince the 'overclass' to make liberal use of reproductive slavery) - "Tax policy is still one of the least coercive forms of oppression by government that we should allow."
5. "Means Testing" for reproductive rights - "Suspend compassion for the underclass, they have had nothing happen to them to deserve other than what they have gotten out of life."
And if you liked that bit of 'modern eugenics' political incorrectness, you'll just love the review of Peterson and Somit's "Darwinism, Dominance and Democracy: The Biological Basis of Authoritarianism"!
Here I have offered views on the "new eugenics" from positions on the 'left' and the 'right'. They appear rather indistinguishable to me.
It would be a mistake to presume that the modern resurgence of eugenics under the umbrella of genetic determinism is a strictly political issue. Nor is it to be associated with the 'atheist' vs. 'Christian' dichotomy in biological science either, since the actual resurgence of the Republican Party under Neocon control likes to drape itself in the mantle of Christianity - even offering specific anti-abortion and nominal pro-ID crumbs to the fundamentalist/creationist "underclass" it secretly plots to restrict and enslave [these guys already know ID isn't ever going to get in public schools on the 'Wedge'].
Both ends of the issue 'need' neodarwinism, both rely upon genetic determinism. Whether the issue revolves around human genetic 'degeneracy' or around engineering the necessary social support system for totalitarian rule, the issue itself is pure bunkum. Both camps need a range of human inequality in society or they've got no one to declare themselves 'naturally' superior to, no one's hard labor or wages to steal, no one's misery to exploit or purposely inflict. The targets are the same either way, after all.
And neither camp can ever hope to actually institute genocide so long as Christ and rational science stand in their way. Which is the more insidious approach, and why? Or are they right?
July 6th, 2005 at 10:24 pm
Funny. Darwin complained about the evil of genocide and the supreme injustice of it, especially with regard to Tasmania. Churches were silent, or urged the slaughter on.
Eugenics, racism and genocide existed long before Darwin pointed out it was stupid. Christianity's stand against genocide in the modern world might be a lot more effective if a small handful of Christians would stop claiming, falsely, that racial war is endemic in the science. It's not.
Comment by edarrell — July 6, 2005 @ 10:24 pm
July 7th, 2005 at 2:08 pm
"Eugenics" did not exist before Darwin's cousin Francis Galton coined the word and applied it to the selective breeding [positive] and prevention of breeding [negative] of rival classes of human beings based on his belief that human society had rendered natural selection impotent to nonexistent in culling the herd. According to his interpretation of Charlie's theory of evolution, in which humanity should 'naturally' have tended to improve its physical/mental condition instead of diluting it to mean.
Genocide, on the other, hand, has existed for as long as humans gathered into tribal groups perceived 'threat' from other groups. Its effectiveness has seldom been total [Neandertal may be a notable exception], but that's not from lack of trying. It has always been about 'classes'.
Obviously the 'new eugenics' is not endemic in science, though its primary spokespersons claim a 'scientific' mandate. This time it's embraced genetics/genomics, as indicated in the story to which I linked, written by a medical doctor, about the current fashion of blaming genes for all that ails us. This is also why the mid-title of my blog post is "Genetic Determinism." Any social policy that relates to population control needs 'scientific' mandate these days. Needed it back in the late 19th and early 20th centuries too, but then it was "Natural Selection," and Mendelian "Trait Charts" gathered into geneologies at Cold Spring Harbor.
Interestingly though, some of the same scientists are involved in countering the 'new eugenics' [see above link to ALL] as are involved in challenging neodarwinism from within the ranks. Is there an ideological link here, and if so, does that make the 'new eugenics' yet another manifestation of philosophical materialism in the Darwinian "orthodox" position?
You didn't answer my blog's specific questions. They still stand unaddressed - 'new eugenics' is supported politically by both 'right' and 'left'. Which is the more insidious approach ['science' versus regular ol' elitist self-interest], and why? Or are they right?
Comment by Joy — July 7, 2005 @ 2:08 pm
July 7th, 2005 at 2:30 pm
Interestingly though, some of the same scientists are involved in countering the "˜new eugenics' [see above link to ALL] as are involved in challenging neodarwinism from within the ranks. Is there an ideological link here, and if so, does that make the "˜new eugenics' yet another manifestation of philosophical materialism in the Darwinian "orthodox" position?
Here is what I could do, but won't do because unlike you, I recognise I would be making a ridiculous strawman.
1) Some ID proponents also assert that HIV isn't the cause of AIDS (a position that nearly led to disaster some years ago when an African health ministry bought into it)
2) As 1 is true, and they are also linked to ID, I conclude that ID ideological position is HIV denial (which is absurd, but lets follow the argument through).
3) I assert methological naturalism as a superior ideal because it doesn't fit with the percieved strawman I constructed above.
Obviously, what you've written is filled with just as much rubbish as what I've written above. Then again, maybe you do think that HIV doesn't cause AIDS. Then all you've done perhaps is prove my point, which just makes me very very very sad.
Comment by Aegeri — July 7, 2005 @ 2:30 pm
July 7th, 2005 at 3:47 pm
Hello, Aegeri. I see you chose to copy-paste a single paragraph asking a logical question against which to frame your response. Let's see… first I noted (because it kinda surprised me to show up on a Google for 'eugenics' while looking for the Cold Spring Harbor archives to link) that I saw Mike Behe's name atop the list of members at ABAC. That may have way more to do with Behe's religious affiliations than his ID advocacy or neodarwinian criticisms, so I asked a question about possible connections. Which was -
"Is there an ideological link here, and if so, does that make the 'new eugenics' yet another manifestation of philosophical materialism in the Darwinian "orthodox" position?"
Rather than address the question asked, you instead inserted "rubbish."
Answer #1: "Some ID proponents also assert that HIV isn't the cause of AIDS (a position that nearly led to disaster some years ago when an African health ministry bought into it)"
Far as I've been able to tell, the AIDS problem in Africa is demographically related to a couple of factors that have nothing in particular to do with the virus that causes it, but with how one gets it [sociological - sexual behavior issue] and how it's managed once you do get it [economic issue]. It's been a "disaster" for awhile now.
Answer #2: "As 1 is true, and they are also linked to ID, I conclude that ID ideological position is HIV denial (which is absurd, but let's follow the argument through)."
You're correct, it is an absurd argument. You have not demonstrated #1 true (or even what the question is that it supposedly answers), and you have not adequately justified a blanket extrapolation from #1 to #2.
Answer #3: "I assert methodological naturalism is a superior ideal because it doesn't fit with the perceived strawman I constructed above."
Well, it's your strawman. I should note, however, that I have said exactly zip about "methodological naturalism" in this thread.
Finally, you claim my questions are "as much rubbish" as your rubbish response. Then you claim to have a point, but I sure don't see one. Please address my points and questions, or keep your rubbish off my thread.
Thanks.
Comment by Joy — July 7, 2005 @ 3:47 pm
July 7th, 2005 at 9:56 pm
The word "eugenics" describes breeding practices in use long before Darwin — there are descriptions of the methods in scripture. That the word didn't exist doesn't mean the behavior didn't. Yes, Galton's use of eugenics bordered on the ethical edge — but more than a dozen states in the U.S. adopted eugenics as policy; most of them were Southern states, and the debates in the legislatures were based more on scripture than on science. Darwin did not propose eugenics, and genetics now tells us that "dilution to a mean" doesn't work where there are genes, especially dominant and recessive genes.
In some cultures men are told to marry women with broad hips — it helps in child birth. In other cultures women select the men based on their ability to accumulate goods. Both of these practices are, technically, eugenics. Is there coming a time that people will not make such decisions? Unlikely.
Eugenics as to breeding future generations isn't much of a threat so long as sex remains so much fun.
Comment by edarrell — July 7, 2005 @ 9:56 pm
July 7th, 2005 at 11:20 pm
Hi again, Ed. I merely noted the origin of the term, per its inception as social policy in humanity's version of the sexual selection sweepstakes. Which will always tend to revert to the mean, mendelian or genetic-determinant [same thing, conceptually].
Eugenicists sought/seek to "intelligently design" this sexual selection process. We have the technology, we have the authoritarian states (in key regions), we have the propaganda machines - we can do it if we want to.
Heck, if I were into such things, I can well imagine how I'd control the population. I'd genetically engineer a "Terminator Technology" [a bit different from that jointly owned by Monsanto and the USDA] aimed at humans. Right into their staple crops - wheat, corn, rice. Make those 'successful' enough to pay the fertility clinic for reproductive "priveleges" [technology] pay for it. An assurance of a designed output to the designed impetus. I could reduce this planet's human overburden by half in two 35-year breeding cycles by attrition alone.
So it kind of mystifies me why "They" [were there a 'they'] would want to take it public. Pride?
Your partners don't practice birth control? Wow. How many children, by how many women, have you sired (and are supporting) so far? How many without the support clause?
Sorry, ed. I'm not very impressed.
Comment by Joy — July 7, 2005 @ 11:20 pm
July 13th, 2005 at 8:58 am
If I didn't practice some wise (and Christian) family planning, that would indeed be an arrogant form of eugenics, wouldn't it?
Perhaps you haven't noticed, but this nation is plagued by out-of-wedlock births, and especially out-of-wedlock teen parent births. Urging reproductive licensing, or whatever it is you're talking about, Joy, will almost always be frustrated by two teenagers in the back seat of a car, multiplied by the number of small towns and the number of kids and the number of full moons, and a bunch of other variables that we haven't realized or just can never know.
Eugenics is hard work. Opportunistic sex, especially between married-to-each-other adults, is not, and is more fun. No one has figured a solid way to overcome the dual pull of love and lust. Either of those forces is more powerful than any drive for eugenics. It's probably better for our species in the long run, too. No eugenicist has broken the magic code our Jacobson's organs use to pick mates. It's almost as if there were an intelligent design working there — but most ID people prefer to attribute lust to a lack of such design. That's one more reason evolution theory works a lot better in God's creation than intelligent design, as an explanation for what goes on.
Comment by edarrell — July 13, 2005 @ 8:58 am