|Chapter 32 - Eugenics|
|“The nation which first subjects itself to a rational eugenical discipline is bound to inherit the earth."|
“Eugenics” (“good birth.”) is the science of improving inherited traits. The word “improving” in the definition implies that someone is doing something to change those traits and that that person has made a judgment as to which traits constitute an “improvement.” Eugenics does not occur when a race or breed evolves of its own accord, even if it becomes more complex, beautiful, intelligent, healthy, or reproductively successful. Eugenics requires a goal and evolution by itself has no purpose or goal; 1
ultimately, it is just chemicals reacting. Thus, if humans simply let evolution take its natural course, humans will still evolve, but we may not like the results. Eugenics implies overruling nature and altering the purposeless course it would otherwise follow in order to achieve a desired collection of traits.
When it comes to choosing a goal for eugenics, what can be said is that failing to choose the minimum amount of those traits that are necessary for reproductive success is maladaptive. 2 Now, what about traits above and beyond those minimum amounts of necessary traits?
Complexity, beauty, intelligence, and even health are not “free” in nature. They cost resources and if “spending” resources on those traits does not bring more reproductive success than other ways they could be “spent,” those traits are less adaptive. To support eugenics means that you must value certain traits above other traits and must be willing to sacrifice a bit of some of the other traits you also desire in order to obtain proportionally more of those traits that are more important to you. 3 Eugenics says nothing about what those more important traits are. For some people, they may include beauty, for others, height or strength. Everyone may favor “health” but, as noted, more “health” is not free, as it requires a better immune system, more DNA repair mechanisms, and so on, so some amount of another trait or traits must be sacrificed to increase it, and that may reduce reproductive success more than the additional health increases it. Similarly, almost everyone favors more intelligence, but a more intelligent brain is a heavier and more resource-costly brain. In the end, people will differ in which traits they desire and which other traits, and how much of them, they are willing to sacrifice in order to obtain the traits they want.
Because the environment may change, making a valuable trait worthless, most people will select a mixture of traits (beyond the necessary traits), rather than maximizing just one single trait. Nevertheless, because man has been so successful primarily because of his intelligence, not his robustness, speed, agility, or some other trait, and we are even more likely to need intelligence to continue surviving, most people will put intelligence near or at the top of their list. 4 However, like other traits, there are diminishing returns for intelligence. That is, for each additional unit (e.g., an IQ point) increase in intelligence, an ever-increasing greater amount of other traits must be sacrificed to achieve it. Not only that, but each additional unit increase in intelligence will have less value to you than the preceding unit increase, e.g., once you have an IQ of about 120, success depends more on other factors, such as persistence, open-mindedness, etc., than on more intelligence. You would not want a child with a brain so huge that he had trouble walking, but who is only slightly more intelligent than another child with a brain half his size.
But since we know that intelligence (high IQ) correlates positively with increased living standards, less crime, and many other desirable qualities, 5 selecting for more intelligence, at least until those correlations no longer hold, offers the best chance of avoiding an unpleasant future. There is certainly no other trait that has any chance of affecting our future in a positive way as much as intelligence. Yet, our government decision makers (“I am the Decider,” G.W. Bush), at the urging of the egalitarians, continue to promote a dysgenic, low IQ future for our country.
A minimum birthrate of 2.1 children per woman is required to maintain a population. Based on 2004 fertility rates, non-Hispanic white women will have 1.847 children; non-Hispanic black women, 2.02 children; and Hispanic women, 2.82 children. Almost half the children in the U.S. under age 5 are non-white. 6 As those numbers show, whites are going extinct 7 and there will be fewer and fewer people with red and blond hair 8 and blue and green eyes.9
Given that the average IQs of the increasing ethnic groups is lower (except for East Asians), the average IQ in the U.S. will fall, the standard of living will decrease, crime will increase (Schuster, 1982), the U.S. will no longer be competitive in highly technical industries, and it will no longer be a world military power. 10 As IQ drops, so does productivity, because high IQ people are more productive than low IQ people – that is why their income is higher. (Herrnstein, 1994). And, since one cannot consume what is not first produced (“If you don’t work, you don’t eat.”), consumption (Gross Domestic Product per person), which correlates 0.73 with IQ (Lynn, 2002a), will also fall, until the country reaches Third World levels. 11
|Figure 32-1||Figure 32-2|
Table of Contents
1. See (Fuerle, 1986) for a discussion of purposeful, goal-directed behavior and its implications. Back
2. The term “maladaptive” is applied to behavior that lessens an individual’s fitness, his likelihood of successfully passing on his genes to the next generation. The term is not applied to every mistake an individual makes, nor to behavior that seems to be adaptive at the time, but turns out to be maladaptive later – perfection is not required. But if there is particular persistent behavior in at least a portion of the population that lowers the reproductive success of those who practice it, that behavior is maladaptive. Most maladaptive behavior was adaptive in the past, but the environment changed so that it is no longer adaptive. Back
3. Ignore the programming difficulties for the moment and think of eugenics as a thought (“gedenken”) experiment, simulated on a computer. The computer sets the minimum amount of traits required to live and reproduce, and you select traits from the remaining resources, trading off some traits for others until you achieve the mix you want; every trait is obtained in the most efficient manner possible. The computer assumes no initial genetic defects, though some may occur later if you don’t select enough DNA repair mechanisms. You compete against other players and the computer (i.e., no eugenics). Whoever is left wins. Back
4. Even our scientific name, Homo sapiens sapiens (man the very wise) denotes high intelligence as our defining trait. Back
5. Even for corruption, the correlation with intelligence is -0.708. (Lynn, 2002a). Back
6. (AFP, Oct. 1, 2006). In 1990, children ranked third in importance for a successful marriage; by 2007, they ranked eighth. By nearly 3:1, Americans say that the main purpose of marriage is the "mutual happiness and fulfillment" of adults rather than the "bearing and raising of children." (“As Marriage and Parenthood Drift Apart, Public Is Concerned About Social Impact,” Pew Research Center, July 1, 2007). "In terms of intergenerational solidarity, the importance of the child as an investment for material support in old age has been limited by the social security and pension insurance system, which has eliminated people's immediate dependence on children…" (“The National Report on Family,” Czech Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs, Aug., 2004, quoted in "Where Have All the Children Gone?" Ziggi's Corner)."Today, children no longer represent investments; instead, they have become pets ... many young couples ... have consciously decided to have a dog instead of a baby.” (Id.) Back
7. Whites are already a minority in 1 in 10 counties in the U.S. (Pollard, K., "10% of U.S. Counties Now 'MajorityMinority"," Population Reference Bureau, Aug., 2008), but motherhood could, in theory, make a comeback. Women who don’t have alleles for desiring children do not pass on those alleles, but women who have those alleles do. Thus, after a few generations the alleles in the gene pool should be mostly those that induce a desire for motherhood. (Aarssen, 2007). (However, one could fairly ask, “Why, then, it is not already so?”) Back
8. "As the amount of migration, inter-marriage and mixing increases we will see them [various shades of red and blond hair] all but disappear." Dr. Desmond Tobin, researcher in hair cell biology at Bradford University. Red and blond hair and blue and green eyes are recessive, so the alleles for them will not disappear, but they will be so widely dispersed that only very infrequently will they be expressed. Back
9. "About half of Americans born at the turn of the 20th century had blue eyes, according to a 2002 Loyola University study in Chicago. By mid-century that number had dropped to a third. Today only about one 1 of every 6 Americans has blue eyes, said Mark Grant, the epidemiologist who conducted the study." (Belkin, D., "Don't it make my blue eyes brown," The Boston Globe, Oct. 17, 2006). Back
10. (Sailer, 2006). Three distinguished American scholars compared massive evidence of national I.Q. score averages worldwide and warned against the decline of any nation whose population reflects declining intelligence. Taking into consideration the differential birthrates of American ethnic stocks, they concluded that American ability is declining rapidly. (Lerner, 1984). Because the black IQ in the U.S. averages 85 and the U.S. military will not accept people with an IQ of less than about 80, U.S. wars kill a disproportionate number of white US soldiers, further lowering IQ. Back
11. Currently, the US finances current consumption by borrowing the money to pay for it, i.e., the U.S. is already bankrupt. China produces for our consumption, expecting us to repay them with even more goods at a later date. Fat chance. "The U.S. annual trade deficit, now running at a rate of more than three-quarters of a trillion annually, or 6.3 percent of GDP, is ….” (Anthony Fell, formerly vice-chairman of the Royal Bank of Canada. Jan. 18, 2007). Back
12. Figures from (MacDonald, K. “MidEast Policy—Immigration Policy: Is The Other Boot About To Drop?” VDARE.com, Jan. 31, 2007). In the 10 yrs between 1990 and 2000, the percentage of Europeans in the US population decreased 18.3%. (US Census, 1990 and 2000). In 2000, there were 881,300 U.S. residents from Africa, but only 5 years later there were 1.25 million. (Crary, D., "Diverse influx of African immigrants search for niche," Oakland Tribune, June 17, 2007, quoting Wilson, J., of the Brookings Institution, based on the U.S. Census). According to the Wright Island Model (Wright, 1931), an established theorem of population genetics, one-way immigration causes the complete genetic extinction of the target population. (Wright, 1931). Back
13. (Lynn, 2002a). The average IQ of Mexicans coming to the U.S. is likely to be lower than 87 because most are peasants. The average IQ of Africans coming to the U.S. is likely to be a higher than 67 because, while those coming as refugees may have an average of 67, the IQ of those coming on other programs is likely to be higher. By importing the more intelligent (and therefore more productive) people from Africa, both the U.S. and Africa become poorer. To paraphrase a quote attributed to Will Rogers, “When the Africans left Africa and went to the U.S.A., the average intelligence of both places went down." Back
14. (Van Court, 1985; Lynn, 2004; Vining, 1984). This is called “dysgenic fertility.” There is a correlation of − 0.73 between IQ and fertility; dysgenic fertility has been estimated to have caused a decline in the world's genotypic IQ of 0.86 IQ points for the years 1950–2000. An additional decline of 1.28 IQ points in the world's genotypic IQ is projected for the years 2000–2050. (Lynn, 2007; Shatz, 2008). To put this another way, more intelligent people, who have fewer children but expend more care on each one, are more “K” orientated. (Chap. 11; Gillespie, 2008). And criminals, who have lower IQ’s, (ave. = 92; Herrnstein, 1994, p. 242), have more children than non-criminals. (Lynn, 1995). Back
15. (Herrnstein, 1994, p. 354). “NLSY” is the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth; “National population” is the U.S. average. Back
16. (Herrnstein, 1994, p. 351). The correlation between IQ and fecundity is -0.81. (“Intelligence and Latitude in the U.S.," The Audacious Epigone, Apr. 13, 2007). Radical feminism, which glorifies a career over motherhood, must bear some of the responsibility for the failure of Caucasians, particularly above-average women, to replace themselves. Ironically, there is some evidence that it is not even healthy for a woman to forego having children. (Grundy, 2006). Back
17. Although Negro slaves were encouraged to produce more slaves, “Even then birth control was secretly exercised by the more intelligent slaves, as we know from many reminiscences.” “On the other hand, the mass of ignorant Negroes still breed carelessly and disastrously…” (DuBois, 1932). Back
18. ‘ … a ‘mere’ 2 point drop of a population's average I.Q. will cut the percentage of geniuses (anyone having an I.Q. over 150) to less than half! And by the time our [U.S.] actual amalgamation [with lower IQ people] is almost complete, our American I.Q. will be about 92, meaning that the percentage of geniuses will decrease to less than 1/30th the WWII percentage. And the percentage of supergeniuses (anyone over 180) will decrease to less than 1/500th!” (Falconi, O., “Where’s America’s Gene Pool Heading?”). Back
19. Some deaf couples want to have deaf children and will abort non-deaf fetuses until they do. (Cooley, 2006). Back
20. The high intelligence of European Jews (average IQ =107 to 115) is sometime attributed to betrothing the brightest boy to the daughter of the richest man. Back
21. In preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD), embryos fertilized in vitro are tested and discarded it they carry a gene that causes a predisposition to a disease, such as cancer. (Harmon, A., 2006). For a good discussion of the issues, see (Whelan, J., “Reproduction revolution: Sex for fun, IVF for children,” New Scientist, Issue 2574, Oct. 20, 2006, pp. 42-45). Back
22. “… slightly deleterious mutations arise in each generation. They are normally removed by selection, but if selection is experimentally prevented then deleterious mutations accumulate and the fitness of the average member of the population declines over time.” (Ridley, 1996, p. 289). Back
23. “Adherence to Marxism-Leninism, and individual behaviour consistent with that philosophy's prescriptions, were among the crucial traits expected of the New Soviet man.” (Wikipedia, “New Soviet Man”). Back
24. (Plotz, D., The Genius Factory, 2005). Back
25. A “perverse” incentive can be defined as an incentive that produces a result that is the opposite of the stated desired result. Back
26. In the United States in the 1960s children became a cash crop for the poor. Mothers on welfare (AFDC) had an average of 2.6 children each; non-AFDC mothers averaged 2.1. (Wright, 1997, p. 64). The IQs of mothers of illegitimate children is ten points lower than mothers of legitimate children. (Wright, 1997, p. 131; Herrnstein, 1994, pp. 191-201). Social Security may also lower the number of children productive people have by increasing their taxes during child-bearing years and making adults less dependent upon their children in their old age. (Juurikkala, 2007). Back
27. Culturally required or encouraged behavior can certainly be maladaptive (Barkow, 1991, p. 293-322), so choosing a child’s traits can be expected to sometimes be maladaptive as well. We are physically generalized apes who have specialized in thinking. In our current environment, this has paid off big time, but future environments may be very different, and we may find ourselves selected for surviving on little energy, where a big brain is a liability, and assets are a cast iron stomach and the immune system of a Komodo Dragon. Back