For those of you who don't know, "eugenics" is the pseudo-science of breeding a better type of human being through "culling the herd" of "inferior" types of human beings. It was promoted by a Victorian polymath by the name of Francis Galton. (Among other things, Galton pioneered the study of fingerprints.)
 |
| Sir Francis Galton, chalk drawing by Janet Caroline Fisher. From the UK National Portrait Gallery, c/o Wiki Commons. |
It's not a difficult concept to understand. We breed better sheep, dogs, cattle, etc, by only selecting the very best individuals for breeding stock. Why can't we do the same thing with people?
The problem is, however, that it isn't all that easy to decide what "best" means for livestock, let alone people. For example, if you breed pigs to be lean (something I know a little about), you may find out that in the process you end up with animals that have smaller litters, or are more susceptible to disease, or have behavioural problems, and so on. All breeding is something of a "trial and error" process with lots of "dead ends" and "false starts"---even when you are looking to increase a very specific, easily-measured trait. This problem is dramatically magnified in human beings because a lot of people's most important qualities are very difficult to quantify---for example "morality", "work ethic", "creativity", "empathy", etc.
In addition, there is the secondary problem of human development being very dependent on conditioning and early life experience. Human beings who grow up in poverty often have extremely limited opportunities for education and personal development compared to people from wealthier backgrounds. But it's very hard for an outside observer to understand where the deficiencies that come from a person's environment end and the genetic components begin.
This isn't a problem in livestock breeding, simply because breeders don't separate their animals into "poor" and "wealthy" groups so they can mistreat the former and coddle the latter. But I do remember that my family once caught a feral pig we found rooting through our vegetable garden and put it into our barn with the animals destined for market. That pig was much smarter than the animals we'd raised from birth! We found that it could open the doors in the pens, climb stairs, etc. This taught me that even with animals like pigs the environment that they grow up in has a huge impact on the development of the individual.
These criticisms have generally discredited eugenics amongst respected, academic researchers. But this hasn't stopped politicians and "reformers" from trying to apply eugenics to social policy. It is just too tempting to use biology to explain class and race differences because it removes any need to talk about the economic and political systems and how they unevenly divide society's collective wealth.
Consider the following graphic:
This isn't a problem in livestock breeding, simply because breeders don't separate their animals into "poor" and "wealthy" groups so they can mistreat the former and coddle the latter. But I do remember that my family once caught a feral pig we found rooting through our vegetable garden and put it into our barn with the animals destined for market. That pig was much smarter than the animals we'd raised from birth! We found that it could open the doors in the pens, climb stairs, etc. This taught me that even with animals like pigs the environment that they grow up in has a huge impact on the development of the individual.
In effect, all the livestock on our farm were "developmentally challenged" because of the limited stimulation their environment offered when they were young. Consider what similar limitations in a young human's early environment might have on his or her development.
These criticisms have generally discredited eugenics amongst respected, academic researchers. But this hasn't stopped politicians and "reformers" from trying to apply eugenics to social policy. It is just too tempting to use biology to explain class and race differences because it removes any need to talk about the economic and political systems and how they unevenly divide society's collective wealth.
Consider the following graphic:
 |
| This is a widely reproduced stock drawing from an article titled Exhibit of Work and Educational Campaign for Juvenile Mental Defectives, which was published in a 1913 edition of The Survey, which was the official journal of Charity Organization Society of the City of New York from 1909 to 1937. Public Domain Image. |
It could be argued that it represents the limits that intellectual disability place upon specific individuals and their ability to function in society. ("Idiot", "imbecile", and, "moron" started off as scientific terms and were originally meant to not be demeaning. This is why this old graphic uses them.) But this sort of classification system can quickly morph into something else. And at least some people will inevitably start to believe that anyone who does "simple menial work" is by definition a "imbecile" and couldn't possibly work at a better job if one was offered to them.
Various members of the ruling elite could easily draw the conclusion that because someone is at a specific place in the economic pecking order that they are there because of their mental deficiency. By following this line of reasoning I would be seen as being either a "medium imbecile" (because of the years I spent in farm labour and as a janitor) and only reached the level of "high grade imbecile" later in life as a "general dog's body" at the University Library. Because I never learned a trade, presumably I never even reached the level of being a "moron".
Here's another graphic, which reflects this way of understanding society according to eugenics.
 |
| Original graphic by D666D. C/o Wiki Commons. |
This idea that all of economics and society is a field for competition between people with greater or lesser inherited ability is called social Darwinism. The term became widely understood in the late 19th century and the theory was used to justify the excesses of both Capitalism and Nationalism.
Thomas Henry Huxley, a well-respected naturalist (for example, he was the first anatomist who identified the link between birds and dinosaurs) who was such an effective defender of natural selection that he was nick-named "Darwin's Bulldog", declared in his review of On the Origin of the Species that "---every philosophical thinker hails it as a veritable Whitworth gun in the armoury of liberalism---". (In this context, read "liberalism" as "libertarianism"---again, terms change their meaning over time.) In other words, every evil visited upon the poor and weak could be justified as being simply part of Darwinian selection, and it would be against the laws of nature and damage the human race if any attempt were made to help these unfortunate individuals.
In much the same way, schools of nationalism tended to see competition between nations as being another field for competition that sift out the weak, leaving only the strong. This point of view existed everywhere, but probably became most entrenched in Imperial Germany. Here's a YouTube video that paints the historical context extremely well.
Thomas Henry Huxley, a well-respected naturalist (for example, he was the first anatomist who identified the link between birds and dinosaurs) who was such an effective defender of natural selection that he was nick-named "Darwin's Bulldog", declared in his review of On the Origin of the Species that "---every philosophical thinker hails it as a veritable Whitworth gun in the armoury of liberalism---". (In this context, read "liberalism" as "libertarianism"---again, terms change their meaning over time.) In other words, every evil visited upon the poor and weak could be justified as being simply part of Darwinian selection, and it would be against the laws of nature and damage the human race if any attempt were made to help these unfortunate individuals.
In much the same way, schools of nationalism tended to see competition between nations as being another field for competition that sift out the weak, leaving only the strong. This point of view existed everywhere, but probably became most entrenched in Imperial Germany. Here's a YouTube video that paints the historical context extremely well.
War isn't a disaster that results from economic forces, dynastic politics, etc. Instead, it is a necessary force that cleans out the "human garbage" that accumulates and clogs the gene pool during long periods of peace.
&&&&
I understand that January is a difficult time for most people. Retail owners accept that they don't sell much in this month. Charities don't get a lot of donations either. But it's February now, and I'd like readers to consider subscribing to the blog. I don't expect a lot, $1/month really does work for my business model---but $0/month doesn't work at all. It's easy to do through Patreon and Pay Pal.
&&&&
Almost immediately after social Darwinism emerged as a social force there were critiques of it being raised. The most articulate advocate of this opposition was---of all things---a Russian prince who was at the same time a significant thinker in both evolutionary biology and anarchism: Prince Peter Kropotkin.
He published a book titled Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution in 1902. It argued that people need to remember that "survival of the fittest" is something of a tautology. That's because the only definition of "fittest" that is implied is just the ability to survive. This doesn't mean "strongest", "most aggressive", "most selfish", etc---it just means "survival of those that survive". And as Kropotkin pointed out, there are lots of examples from nature where animals survive and thrive as communities because individuals mutually support each other (think about social insects, for example.) Indeed, a whole range of evolutionary biology called "selfish gene theory" grew out of Kropotkin's insights once biologists learned about DNA and role it plays in evolution.
&&&&
A few years back there was a lot of passionate debate on-line about an interview that Sam Harris did with Charles Murray. Murray is somewhat infamous for writing a book titled The Bell Curve that argues that Black individuals are 15 points---on average---less intelligent than whites. This extremely explosive statement is couched in a lot of scientific language that went over my---and I assume almost every other listener's---head so I found myself having to simply "suspend disbelief" while I listened to it. At least Murray went to great lengths to lessen the impact of what he was saying by pointing out that the difference in IQ between individual black people is much higher than the average difference between whites and blacks. This means that it is impossible to infer that any specific black person is less intelligent than another specific white person---simply because of their skin colour. But as Harris points out, this statement does provide a great deal of "aid and comfort" to white nationalists.
What I found important about the discussion was that about half way through the conversation
Murray "switched gears" and started making pronouncements about social policy that didn't seem to have any sort of relation to the first part. Even worse, while he kept saying that the relationship between IQ and genes that he'd said in the first part of the talk was non-controversial in the scientific community (something that I have seen disputed by experts in the field), he admitted that his public policy ideas were very controversial with academic researchers.
The main points he made was that our modern economy places a much greater emphasis on IQ than any other time in human history and that the population is separating out into two different categories---one in which is a superior "over class" and the other is an inferior "under class". The important point for him is that all the usual explanations for inequality in society cannot be explained through racism, poor public schools, class bias, etc. Instead, it all comes down to IQ, and there's absolutely nothing at all that can be done about that. You are what the genes you inherited say you will be, and that's that.
Given that operating assumption that it all comes down to the genes you inherit and no social policy can overcome your physical inheritance, Murray suggests that the only logical thing that the government should do is get rid of every program that seeks to "level the playing field". Instead, he supports a universal basic income. This would be given to every single member of the population, who would be forced to have a bank account. This would make people accountable for managing the money, which would force these poor, benighted souls to at least develop the traditional middle-class virtues of "thrift" and "budgeting".
I mention the conversation between Harris and Murray not because I wanted to explain every nuance of this heated debate, but rather to point out that social Darwinism is still an active part of public discourse. Again, not within the scientific community (neither Harris nor Murray are experts in the field---although they both like to "talk like one"), but as part of political ideology.
As I hope to point out in the future articles on this subject, this worldview was also quite prevalent in Ontario public policy until quite recently. And it had a profound impact on the lives of unfortunate individuals who found themselves caught up in it.
&&&&
Moreover, I say onto you. We have to deal with the Climate Emergency!
&&&&
I understand that January is a difficult time for most people. Retail owners accept that they don't sell much in this month. Charities don't get a lot of donations either. But it's February now, and I'd like readers to consider subscribing to the blog. I don't expect a lot, $1/month really does work for my business model---but $0/month doesn't work at all. It's easy to do through Patreon and Pay Pal.
&&&&
Almost immediately after social Darwinism emerged as a social force there were critiques of it being raised. The most articulate advocate of this opposition was---of all things---a Russian prince who was at the same time a significant thinker in both evolutionary biology and anarchism: Prince Peter Kropotkin.
 |
| Peter Kropotkin, photo by Nadar, and preserved in the New York Public Library. C/o the Wiki Media Commons. |
He published a book titled Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution in 1902. It argued that people need to remember that "survival of the fittest" is something of a tautology. That's because the only definition of "fittest" that is implied is just the ability to survive. This doesn't mean "strongest", "most aggressive", "most selfish", etc---it just means "survival of those that survive". And as Kropotkin pointed out, there are lots of examples from nature where animals survive and thrive as communities because individuals mutually support each other (think about social insects, for example.) Indeed, a whole range of evolutionary biology called "selfish gene theory" grew out of Kropotkin's insights once biologists learned about DNA and role it plays in evolution.
It's not a happenstance that capitalists and militarists looked at On the Origin of the Species and found a justification for abusing workers and fighting murderous wars, and, an anarchist saw mutual aid. People start off with basic assumptions about the world around them and use these assumptions to pick and choose evidence that supports those assumptions. It is possible to learn and grow beyond these prejudices, but it isn't an easy process. It requires a great deal of self-reflection and that can often be in very short supply---.
&&&&
 |
| Sam Harris, photo c/o Wiki Media Commons. Cropped by Bill Hulet |
A few years back there was a lot of passionate debate on-line about an interview that Sam Harris did with Charles Murray. Murray is somewhat infamous for writing a book titled The Bell Curve that argues that Black individuals are 15 points---on average---less intelligent than whites. This extremely explosive statement is couched in a lot of scientific language that went over my---and I assume almost every other listener's---head so I found myself having to simply "suspend disbelief" while I listened to it. At least Murray went to great lengths to lessen the impact of what he was saying by pointing out that the difference in IQ between individual black people is much higher than the average difference between whites and blacks. This means that it is impossible to infer that any specific black person is less intelligent than another specific white person---simply because of their skin colour. But as Harris points out, this statement does provide a great deal of "aid and comfort" to white nationalists.
What I found important about the discussion was that about half way through the conversation
 |
| Charles Murray. Photo by Gage Skidmore, c/o the Wiki Media Commons. |
The main points he made was that our modern economy places a much greater emphasis on IQ than any other time in human history and that the population is separating out into two different categories---one in which is a superior "over class" and the other is an inferior "under class". The important point for him is that all the usual explanations for inequality in society cannot be explained through racism, poor public schools, class bias, etc. Instead, it all comes down to IQ, and there's absolutely nothing at all that can be done about that. You are what the genes you inherited say you will be, and that's that.
Given that operating assumption that it all comes down to the genes you inherit and no social policy can overcome your physical inheritance, Murray suggests that the only logical thing that the government should do is get rid of every program that seeks to "level the playing field". Instead, he supports a universal basic income. This would be given to every single member of the population, who would be forced to have a bank account. This would make people accountable for managing the money, which would force these poor, benighted souls to at least develop the traditional middle-class virtues of "thrift" and "budgeting".
I mention the conversation between Harris and Murray not because I wanted to explain every nuance of this heated debate, but rather to point out that social Darwinism is still an active part of public discourse. Again, not within the scientific community (neither Harris nor Murray are experts in the field---although they both like to "talk like one"), but as part of political ideology.
As I hope to point out in the future articles on this subject, this worldview was also quite prevalent in Ontario public policy until quite recently. And it had a profound impact on the lives of unfortunate individuals who found themselves caught up in it.
&&&&
Moreover, I say onto you. We have to deal with the Climate Emergency!
No comments:
Post a Comment