The Watson controversy

"Wat happens to the right's embrace of meritocracy when the overclass acquires control of the means of guided genetic reproduction, and games the system such that the working and the middle classes can't hope to compete?"

I think that it's possible that, while at first genetic engineering would only be for the rich, eventually it would become cheaper and everyone would be able to have it. Which actually is possibly WORSE...

God bless.

"Why doesn't this question ever seem to occur to you as you take breaths between denouncing religious conservatives for being troglodytes standing in the way of science?

Who says it doesn't? I've had plenty of conversations with "liberals" (insert scare music) who contemplate these concerns and wonder about the morality of science. In creating the strawman, you seem not to understand how these conversations take place at all or how "liberals" (play scary music again/cover the kids' eyes) view science. You have created this bizarre fantasy concept of how science is viewed that is cut off from day-to-day reality.

Liberals do believe in the sanctity of human life, they just don't believe it begins during foreplay or is frozen in a tube in a fertility clinic. It is liberals, afterall, who have raised the concern over forced abortions in China and gender-based abortion in India. It is feminists who have being paying attention to these concerns for decades, while the U.S. pro-life movement discovered it last week.

Just because "liberals" (final chord of scary music) don't agree on when life begins and are willing to respect personal decisions about when life ends doesn't mean there isn't respect for human life.

Gattaca! LOL! Very good.

Because the UN Population Fund protects women's health and children's health all over the world, not just in China. And because there is no credible evidence the fund is subsidizing forced abortions in China or even abortion generally. Our own State Department has said this.

Feminists have been alarmed by forced abortions and gender-specific abortions for decades. Pick up a MS magazine, look at agendas from International meetings of women's groups, read feminist history and literature.

Joel said it much better.

>>What will you say, liberals, when those with the financial resources to genetically manipulate their unborn children to be superstar athletes with Nobel-quality brains, start doing so?

I'd say that Robert Heinlein covered the question pretty well in his 1942 novella 'Beyond This Horizon'.

I'd also agree with Joey that even if the technology started out expensive, it would soon fall in price to be available to most Americans. Unlike Joey, I don't think that would be a worse scenario.

The core of the debate is not about the "morality" of individual research projects or branches of science. It's about the ends (telos) of human existence. That's the divide.

liberals get themselves into a serious bind with their valorization of scientific supremacy

Yeah. It's sort of amusing.

On one hand, libs valorize evolution and diversity. It's like their god.

On the other hand, evolution itself requires a species to be constantly culling itself for more "fit" traits, and so it is impossible that human families remain equal in everything if evolution is to be true. Humans are diverse. And we know from genetic studies that human races (simply large inbred extended families) have many genetic differences for the many different climes they've had to survive in.

And it is so bloody obvious merely by examining Olympic medals, Nobel prizes, chess championships, or IQ tests exactly which families of humans have got the most fit genes in any particular area. Duh. But I confess it's a guilty pleasure of mine to watch liberal ideology clash against science; only the really obtuse lib can maintain the fiction and it's fun to watch the rest dance and squirm. And persecute Nobel laureates who get too far into their dotage and are walking around muttering exactly what part of science am I not supposed to talk about again to keep libs off my back?. Watching libs eat Nobel laureates like Larry Summers and James Watson for dinner is better than going to the movies. Pass the popcorn!

But Watson is right about one thing: it is going to be even more fun in a decade or so when scientists have isolated exactly which genes allow for specific traits. We will know what genes deliver the Ashkanazi Jews half the chess championships, or the genes that allow the Nandis of Africa to have the greatest concentration of raw athletic talent in the history of sports. We are only about a decade or so away here. And seriously, I really am curious how liberals are going keep up the cognitive dissonance as the data piles up. But don't underestimate libs here: they don't do reality very well and will likely take extreme measures. I wouldn't doubt it if they start jailing scientists (oops, I mean heretics) who dare tell the truth (oops, I mean engage in hate speech) about genetics.

It's amusing. In the end the fact of Evolution will be a much bigger problem for the Left than it is or ever has been for the Right.

Typical leftist mindset: "Hey, I thought evolution was just a cool way to bash Christians and say there is no God. I didn't think it actually MEANT anything!"

Jim, do you think that if a gay gene is identified, that women should have the moral right (for they already have the legal right) to abort their unborn gay children? Any Christian worthy of the name would despise that choice.

From everything I've read there are IQ differences between racial groups. Now before people start yelling about cultural differences, environment, education, etc. and that I'm supporting some sort of white supremacy, East Asians have the highest IQ average. Africans tend toward the lowest average with some aboriginal groups being the lowest. Everyone else is in-between. This doesn't mean there are African geniuses and Asian morons. It just means that on average Asians are smarter than Africans. So, in a mixed society with other factors being equal, you would expect more Asians in high IQ professions and fewer Africans. From a policy standpoint, that means you can't expect to achieve equal representation in professions based solely on ethnic makeup. IQ differences are going to limit certain groups.

Now, none of this means that environment and culture don't play a part in how well certain groups perform. A bunch of lazy geniuses will most likely lose to a bunch of mediocre hard-workers. The same can be said for a bunch of honest people will create a better society than corrupt geniuses. But, you can't ignore that IQ does play a significant part. One problem with the debate though is that a lot of the IQ people act as if IQ is all that matters.

Rod,

I believe abortion is immoral in most circumstances, rape (incl incest) and life of the mother being sticky circumstances that make me glad I'm not God and not the poor woman presented with this situation. What makes me liberal I suppose is that I'd rather not start locking women up indiscriminately nor drive them into the alleyways and pretend that because we've made something illegal, we've met our civic responsibility.

But it is murder, you say. And I say, yes, it is the ending of a life or at least a life-that-could-have-been. God cries. We should cry that so many babies are unwanted or are conceived in such sad ways or desperate circumstances. But He is crying for those babies that are born and starve to death too; He's crying for those kids who get beaten by stressed out parents lacking any sort of support network to help them with a task that they are not equal to. He's crying for those kids who have been shunted off to foster care, institutions or left to rot.

I am liberal because I think we can and should do better as a society; I am a liberal because I think my enlightened self-interest is served when we provide a safety net to people when circumstances beyond their control or a bad decision on their part would completely wreck them.

But I'm not sure what motivated your question in the first place?

But I'm not sure what motivated your question in the first place?

Nothing more than a recognition that human nature being what it is, those who believe that abortion is a right -- a number that usually includes liberals and non-religious conservatives -- are bringing about a world in which we are likely to see (assuming that there's a discoverable genetic component to homosexuality) fewer gays because they will have been aborted. Anyway, I think it's an interesting point to ponder, especially if one is a gay supporter of abortion rights.

M_David: And it is so bloody obvious merely by examining Olympic medals, Nobel prizes, chess championships, or IQ tests exactly which families of humans have got the most fit genes in any particular area.

"Fitness" in the Darwinian sense doesn't mean "higher IQ" or "better at chess" or "better athlete." All it means is, he who dies with the most kids wins. Period. If the people who are bad at chess, poor at athletics, and have average or slightly lower-than-average IQs have more children per generation, they are still more fit.

In The Bell Curve, Charles Murray showed exactly that - those women with slightly lower IQs had more children than women with average or above-average IQs. Really smart women were the least fit of all. (I don't recall what was said about men.)

Rod, I'm still confused by your last comment. Those who believe abortion is a right--liberals and non-religious conservatives, in your formulation--don't think being gay is bad. So even though they have a right to abort a fetus, they wouldn't abort a gay fetus, but would rather welcome it into the world like any other child.

Those who believe being gay is bad--pro-life conservatives, again in your formulation as I understand it--also believe abortion is bad. So I assume their principles would not allow them to abort a fetal gay person, no matter how much they deplored its future condition.

So, the world we're likely to see, if you're right, is one where there will be more and more gay conservatives. (Especially if it turns out to be true that the more older brothers one has, the more likely he is to be gay.) I do think this is an interesting point to ponder . . . .

Rod, I'm still confused by your last comment. Those who believe abortion is a right--liberals and non-religious conservatives, in your formulation--don't think being gay is bad. So even though they have a right to abort a fetus, they wouldn't abort a gay fetus, but would rather welcome it into the world like any other child.

sigilaris: You really believe that everyone out there who believes that abortion can be morally acceptable would also welcome the idea of their own son being gay?

Marian Neudel,

I would be interested to read your Bell Curve review. What's your blog's URL?

Simon, in a word, yes. At least that's my experience. Of all the different kinds of people I've known, the only ones who would react with horror to the idea of a gay child are the religious conservatives. I'm open to hearing about all the liberals, atheists, anarchists, libertarians, etc. who would, in your experience, abort a potentially gay fetus.

meh:

Read Marian Neudel's post (good one, Marian!), read the literature, and get back to me ...

Here's a good article about what's coming.

http://www.nationalreview.com/derbyshire/derbyshire200411220823.asp

Highlights:

What about a cure for Alzheimer's?" I ask my guest. My Dad died from Alzheimer's, and it's a thing I worry about. I had read that some genetic research was going on.

The datanaut shook his head. "Tricky. Dangerous. Alzheimer's correlates with IQ, you see. Also has different incidence among different races..." He laughed. "Once researchers know that, they go find something else to work on. The state our science is in right now, there's plenty of low-hanging fruit. No need to go committing professional suicide."

So it goes. This wave of knowledge, this great wave, is building up in laboratories and research institutes all around the world. Sooner or later the wave will come roaring in to crash on our beach. When that happens, a lot of stuff will get swept away — a lot of social dogma, a lot of wishful thinking, a lot of ignorant punditry and self-righteous posturing, and probably some law and tradition and religion and social cohesion as well. There is, however, no stopping the wave.

Dragged forward by cold science, which doesn't care what we think or wish for, we are headed into some interesting times.

I didn't know Ashkenazi Jews weren't white, and were instead their own race...

You can divide people however you want. But genetically, Jews are from Semitic stock (Middle East). And Oriental Jews don't have the same genes for intelligence that the Ashkenazi do, who have different bloodlines, mixing in with Europeans and look more "white."

And Larry, brace yourself for the genetic reality coming your way. Soon, you won't be able to cry "discrimination" because we will have isolated the specific genes that control for intelligence. They have already got one or two, and they so far match up statistically as expected to IQ scores. Just like V02-max matches up to running ability. I'm sorry, be we are simply learning too much to hide it anymore.

"Tests inherently reflect culture, which means they inherently reflect cultural biases."

Larry, do Nobel Prizes in the sciences inherently reflect cultural biasis? How about Fields Medals for mathematics?

I think Larry's point was that the type of discrimination was different not just in degree, but in kind. Jewish immigrant culture was very different from the culture enforced on slaves and their descendants. I'm also wondering how many of the Jewish Nobel Prize winners came from impoverished Jewish immigrants, and how many came from families who may have fled Europe, but who did so with their family cultural and educational heritage intact, even though they may have left their material possessions behind. I'm not making any arguments one way or the other about IQ with this question--I'm just wondering if anybody knows.

I agree that it will be very interesting to learn more about how genes affect what we think of as our personalities. There will be way more stuff involved than just "intelligence." We'll also find genes for psychological variations, like shyness, aggression, social dysfunctions, and tendencies toward addiction. Much of what we think of as free will is going to turn out to be involuntary--based on environmentally-mediated expression of inherited genes. How are conservatives going to handle this? Will it really be possible any more to believe that blaming-and-shaming is the way to achieve social change? Will we be able to assert that poor people are in trouble because they don't have "will power" or "morality," rather than recognizing that they got the short end of the stick in the genetic lottery, aggravated by environmental factors over which they have no control? How will we explain why God punishes us for being as he created us to be?

If employers can look at your charts and see that you're very intelligent, they may also be able to see that you have various personality disorders and are not likely to be a good team player. Or they may see that you are at risk for depression or paranoia, and turn you down because they don't want to pay your future medical bills or risk a workplace rampage. Learning more about our genes is going to be quite the can of helical worms!

It's also going to reveal as the disgrace that it is the kind of thing rebeccat spoke of upthread--prejudice against people with innate ability. Racism is going to stand out like dandruff on a black suit. And I think that we're going to find that genetic expression is not immutable, but interactive with the environment. So that's going to make social neglect an even more damning problem. I'm all in favor of getting all the "forbidden knowledge" that we can, but there will be interesting times when we get it.

You make a good point, meh! It seems to me--without statistical support at this point--that a tendency to react to problems by looking for someone to blame is probably innate to some degree. There are quite a few studies suggestive of the idea that conservative and liberal personality types are partially genetic. Which would mean that neither one was "wrong" in an absolute sense. They'd simply be more or less useful in a given situation. And I suspect they'll also find that certain types of environments promote expression of those traits.

As for the existence of God, I neither assert nor deny at the moment. My earlier reference was ironic. (Though I wonder if a tendency to experience religious faith will also turn out to be a set of heritable physical characteristics. That would really mess up the theologians!)

"Though I wonder if a tendency to experience religious faith will also turn out to be a set of heritable physical characteristics. That would really mess up the theologians!)"

Reminds me of what my husband said back when some sports commentator was in hot water for saying African-Americans are better athletes than Caucasians because the slavemasters of their ancestors bred them for speed and strength. "Sure," said my husband. "And the Egyptians bred their Jewish slaves for godliness, which is why we're still so godly." Maybe they really did!

African-Americans are better athletes than Caucasians because the slavemasters of their ancestors bred them for speed and strength.

This is total bunk. We know because:

1) Not enough years of American slavery have passed to get a large genetic change between African-Americans and Africans. The only real genetic difference is that African-Americans have about 20% white blood in them now on average.

2) African tribes in Africa who have never been slaves have superior athletic abilities compared to whites as well.

For example: running. If we look at the 1500m, 5000m, 10000m, & marathon and compare African Kalenjin tribe and all whites, there is simply no comparison. Whites are slow. Note populations & number of winners from 1995-2001 below (by these dates, all races were competing; before the 1990s, many remote talents had not been discovered yet):

Tribe: Population-# winners 1500m-5000m-10000m-Marathon
-----------------------------------
Kalenjin: 3.5mil-24-25-31-41
European: 159mil-6-4-8-7

So, it's obvious the Kalenjin have superior genetics for running. And soon, we will know the actual genes that deliver this performance.

The genetic data is pouring in from two directions: first, the macro. We can do massive statisical analysis of large populations and compare to disease, health, IQ, athletics, etc. Second, the micro. We have broken the genetic code and can compare genetic differences against performance. It is only a matter of time before we isolate these alleles, even with liberal persecution of scientists daring to do the research.

What makes it really bad for all of us is that liberals are good at both stopping funding for this research AND preventing anyone from talking about it without losing their jobs (even top Nobel guys like Watson). And since science cannot be stopped, only delayed, it's going to hit us all at once like a brick, and nobody will be ready for it. Free speech on this subject is simply not allowed in our schools or media, and the common dude knows nothing about it.

But not forever. We will look back at the Watson thing and shake our heads, like at the Galileo mess, and wonder how a culture could ever be so dumb as to think they can hide the truth. The hubris of man.