> The Old Eugenics versus the New Eugenics > > By Matt Nuenke > > In Roger Pearsons Heredity and Humanity: Race, Eugenics and Modern > Science (1996), he argues for the traditional view of eugenics > that was common at the turn of the century. But our understanding > of genes and what makes humans what they are has changed radically > with our understanding of the genetic code and how it is > expressed. What is interesting is that the traditional eugenicists > were conservationists, pleading for the preservation of genetic > diversity including human races, animal species and subspecies. > They were very much like the modern biodiversity advocates who > want plant and animal genes preserved, for every unique > combination they can find in nature, while simultaneously > dismissing the diversity in human genes between population groups > as insignificant. There has been a curious reordering of what > should be preserved and what should be destroyed when it comes to > genetic combinations in nature The new liberal egalitarians echo > the early eugenicists, except now humans are to be excluded. We > have apparently risen above any concerns for preserving racial > genetic diversity. Now only cultural diversity has any value worth > considering. > > Pearson argues that kinship is a necessary component of a vital > population group, and that evolution will not progress if > different populations are mixed up genetically because this leads > to biological egalitarianism. With biological egalitarianism comes > concern for all populations and the Wests dysgenic policies of > lower births for the overclass and higher births for the > underclass. We have, according to Pearson, lost our way because we > have lost our closeness to our own genetic group, especially the > Germanic peoples. Pearson writes: > > The evolutionary function of altruism is frustrated and the sense > of group identity is weakened in multi-racial societies. > Thirty-three years ago, Sir Julian Huxley pointed to the > perversion of altruism that has resulted from the rise of > large urbanized, multi-racial communities, and the dysgenic > result of this re-direction of a natural impulse into > unnatural channels in an overcrowded and heavily acculturated > world. [Huxley states] "In that long period of human history > during which our evolving and expanding hominid ancestors > lived in small and tightly knit groups competing for > territorial and technological success, the social > organization promoted selection for intelligent exploration > of possibilities, devotion and cooperative altruism: the > cultural and genetic systems reinforced each other. It was > only much later with the growth of bigger social units... > that the two become antagonistic... and gave way to the > possibility and later the probability of genetic regression > and degeneration." > > Pearson, in the tradition of eugenics as conservation, wants to > keep the races separate so as not to contaminate the innate > kinship that results. The traditional view of eugenics was one of > contamination of strong, pure bloodlines. This attitude was common > among the Germanic peoples prior to Christianity and among the > Indo-Europeans - it is expressed in the Indian caste system, > according to Pearson, even today. (I would add it is also found in > Judaism see Kevin MacDonalds A People Who Shall Dwell Alone.) > > Pearson feels that: > > Biological egalitarianism is being further advanced by the > psychological impact of the Third World population explosion. > World population is currently increasing at the rate of some > 97 million annually, and even assuming that the rate of > increase will decline, it is estimated to reach 10 billion by > the year 2050. This is prompting massive migratory movements, > which are probably only a token sample of what is yet to > come. > > Somehow, Pearson links egalitarianism with population size, almost > as if the massively exploding underclass could conspire to push an > ideological position to benefit them at the expense of the West. I > find this argument hard to accept, especially when China, with > 1.25 billion conservative, intelligent people, with a population > dominated by singletons that will promote the status quo, will > probably be the Wests salvation by pushing back socialist > egalitarianism in the future. As assuredly as communism will fall > in China, Asia should not succumb to the same dysgenic policies > that have plagued the West, thanks to the tough mindedness we can > expect from a population made up of primarily only children (See > Frank Sulloways Born to Rebel.) > > Pearson does provide a thorough history of the eugenics movement > and how the science succumbed to socialist and egalitarian dogma. > He contributes this to first Christianity and then post-Christian > egalitarianism from the Marxist tradition. He states, > > 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. > > This is an important point that seems to be overlooked in the > battle between conservative and liberal dogma. They are both > hobbled by a rejection of evolution. The left claims racism and > the right accuses cultural relativism and the welfare state. > Neither accepts innate differences in genes as the cause. Pearson > then states, > > Egalitarian propaganda was consequently powerfully aided by a > separate development that now began to pervade segments of > academia, the media and the political world. In the nations > of the West, already quasi-internationalist due to the legacy > of Christianity as a missionary religion, modern > communications tended to extend the concept of human > community to embrace the entire world. > > Pearsons historical perspective on how the West came to abrogate > science for a dysgenic worldview is solid, even if it does fail to > grasp the implications of todays understanding of genes and how > eugenics/dysgenics has changed with new information about the > process of evolution. > > The traditional negative eugenicists were concerned about bad > genes in families of imbeciles or genetic diseases that had to be > prevented from spreading in the population. Today, negative > eugenics concerned with genetic disease is best practiced at the > family level, between parents and their doctor. It is foolish to > think that the government can do any better job of determining the > significance of a genetic disease or condition. Intelligent > parents are in the best position to determine when to abort and > when to have a child. For stupid parents, abortion is always the > best option but the less intelligent cannot understand the > arguments. > > With regards to positive eugenics, or the policy of breeding more > prolifically those individuals with superior genes, we now know > that good genes do not run in families because we no longer > believe in "good" genes. At the turn of the century, "good" > families were held up to exemplify what society should be > selecting for with regards to breeding. Now, thanks to > psychometrics, we can measure intelligence along with a host of > other personality types. With a better understanding of evolution > and its attempt at diversification of "types" within population > groups, it seems that the only criteria needed today for positive > eugenics is to select for intelligence. All other personality > traits, such as conscientiousness, impulsiveness, activity level, > extraversion, sociability, etc., can be ignored until the overall > level of a populations average IQ is sufficient to deal with the > level of technical and social complexity that we find ourselves in > today. In fact in evolutionary or adaptive terms, nature keeps > most of these genetic traits mixed-up because in different > ecologies or environments, different ones will have better > survival value. > > In nature, there is no one ideal personality trait. But > intelligence is very different. Intelligence, unlike many other > traits, is not one that is subject to environmental niches. That > is, a high intelligence is always better than a low intelligence. > What this means is, that todays concern for eugenics can be > concerned with just one variable, the g factor in intelligence, > without too much concern about how it is expressed. Given the > other essentials necessary for a productive life, as long as there > is a preponderance of smart genes in a population rather than a > shortage of smart genes, the individual will tend to find a > rewarding niche in music, philosophy, or building homes; as a > machinist, a soldier, or a restaurateur. But intelligence will be > in demand, and a lack of it will be a millstone. > > But it is one thing to have a national eugenic policy and another > to find a way to implement it. Pearson warns, > > This new spirit of biological egalitarianism involved a > transmutation of humanitarian values. Altruism had evolved > because the survival chances of a population were enhanced > when individual members were prepared to make personal > sacrifices to protect the intergenerational well being of > their own kind. Today, however, altruism is becoming > increasingly generalized among the peoples of the Western > world, who are losing their sense of ethnic cohesiveness and > distinctive identity. For them, altruistic emotions are > becoming increasingly stimulated not by threats to the > survival of their own gene pool, but by the plight of all the > worlds expanding multitudes, which in past millennia nature > had always trimmed back by natural selection. As a result of > this redirection of the altruistic impulse, the members of > the advanced Western nations increasingly devote their > efforts to attempts to assist genetically competing > populations to survive and reproduce prolifically, while > allowing their own birthrates to fall below replacement > level. > > Well, Im afraid the genie is out of the bottle (at least for most > of us). We are not going back to small, homogeneous, ethnocentric > enclaves where the us-versus-them altruism will improve the gene > pool. In fact, I am very skeptical that within-group altruism > necessarily leads to higher intelligence. Two groups that have > lived among others and who have practiced high levels of > ethnocentrism and separation are the Gypsies and the Jews. The > former seems to have led to a dysgenic evolutionary strategy and > the latter a highly eugenic one (average group IQs of 85 versus > 117). It hardly seems that within-group altruism in itself leads > to sound breeding policies. > > On the contrary, I will propose that a solid and workable eugenics > program can be implemented without any consideration for race or > ethnicity. We are experiencing it first hand, with a high level of > intermarriage between Asians, Jews, and non-Jewish whites, > precisely because of assortative mating and people selecting mates > for intelligence, and not for ethnicity. At the same time, there > is little intermarriage between Blacks and Whites for the same > reason. Ethnicity is of little concern when intelligence is what > is understood to be of importance to succeed, whether on the job, > socially, or for having intelligent children. > > To improve the genetic capital of the nation then, it is only > necessary that what most people know to be true intuitively, but > the media and social academia has tried to deny and keep from the > public, be accepted and discussed at the national policy level. We > must come to grips with the futility of trying to improve an > educational system that is treating uneducable children as if > anyone can be taught, and concentrate on teaching the brightest to > become leaders able to deal with the Nations genetic > deterioration. I suggest that several programs can begin to > improve the genetic capital necessary for the next millenium: > > 1) There must be an open discussion of the nature/nature debate > that includes everything research has uncovered with regards to > genetic disparity between different groups. As we come to > understand the reality of the limitations that innate potential > places on each individuals capacity to learn and achieve, we will > begin to appreciate the level of genetic capital available within > our culture, regardless of where it is found or which ethnic group > or gender has been blessed with the preponderance of natural > ability. So far, in the national debate on race, there has been > precious little honesty about intelligence. However, some > enlightened intellectuals are beginning to bring this matter to > the publics attention (Michael Hart, Michael Levin, Seymour > Itzkoff, Richard Lynn, Arthur Jensen, J.P. Rushton, Jared Taylor, > etc.). 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) Since changing peoples breeding > behavior can be difficult in the short run, the best way we have > of improving the nations genetic capital is to allow only > intelligent immigrants in. This means aggressively encouraging > European elites if possible, but more practically it means tapping > into the 1.25 billion Chinese and other intelligent Asians for > immigration while preventing the lower class immigrants we are now > encouraging to become citizens. I can think of no better way to > change the dysgenic egalitarian culture of the West than to > encourage the immigration of the tough-minded, nationalistic, > Asian culture. Richard Hoy and Jared Taylor have expressed alarm > that the influx of Hispanic immigrants of low intelligence will > deplete the Republican Parties possible reemergence as the > dominant party. 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 Nations > average IQ (and of course rebuilding the Republican Party). > 3) Encourage the poor to participate in surrogate parenting. Now > that we can artificially fertilize an egg and plant it in a > surrogate mother, why dont we utilize the multitude of poor women > to carry the children of the overclass. It has always been known > that the elite does not like to have their lives interrupted by > bearing children, but may want to have the 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 elses. 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 dont harm the > baby from their ignorance or from malice. > 4) The tax structure should be modified to encourage the very > smartest to have children. Instead of all kinds of tax write-offs > for business investments, taxes could only be reduced by having > more children. This, coupled with #3 above, will finally get those > more fortunate (as a proxy for higher intelligence) to invest in > the nations genetic capital and not just in the machinery of > industry. Tax policy is still one of the least coercive forms of > oppression by government that we should allow. > 5) Suspend compassion for the underclass, they have had nothing > happen to them to deserve other than what they have gotten out of > life. Except for a very few people who have fallen into despair > momentarily and may need a hand, there is no reason why any > society should be as preoccupied as we are with the underclass. > This radical egalitarianism may have come about from some innate > artifacts in our evolution, similar to belief in cults and > religion, but there is no reason to believe we cannot indoctrinate > ourselves away from such destructive beliefs. Instead, compassion > for others should be limited to a persons immediate family, cult, > or self-selected group. That is, limit a helping hand to those you > know for sure deserve it, and keep free riders from taking > advantage. For the underclass, they can pool their resources and > live as comfortably as they may as a group, helping each other. Of > course, this will require that those who cannot afford to raise > children will not have them. We must implement a "means test" > before allowing people to procreate indiscriminately. > > Note that none of the above measures to improve the viability of > the United States, by increasing the average intelligence, need > assume anything about race. If race was no longer considered as a > viable criteria for any categorization or classification, and only > each individuals merit is considered, whether it be in the arts, > academia or sports, then we can put the accusations of racism > behind us. When we finally recognize what everyone intuitively > knows and understands, that groups are different, only then can we > stop considering and accusing by race and select the best person > for each position, job, or as a friend. > > Bibliography > > Heredity and Humanity: Race, Eugenics and Modern Science > Pearson, Roger > Scott-Townsend Publishers > Washington, DC, 1996 > > A People That Shall Dwell Alone: Judaism as a Group Evolutionary > Strategy > MacDonald, Kevin > Praeger Publishers, Westport, CT, 1994. > 302 pages, ISBN 0-275-94869-2 > > Born to Rebel: Birth Order, Family Dynamics, and Creative Lives > Sulloway, Frank J. > Pantheon Books, New York, NY > 653 pages, ISBN 0-679-44232-4
