< 1 2 3 4 5 >  Last ›
 
   
 

The background knowledge for genetic racial intelligence differences

 
hannahtoo
 
Avatar
 
 
hannahtoo
Total Posts:  7176
Joined  15-05-2009
 
 
 
09 February 2019 12:16
 

Abel Dean:
So, I will now answer your two questions. I think hypothetical #2 is almost already the status quo, so there would not be much social difference, except for maybe an enhanced conspiratorial thinking against the white race. Supposing hypothetical #1, then white nationalism would be an open part of the platform of the Republican Party. The Democratic Party would oppose them not by denying the science but instead emphasizing the scientific truths in their favor (i.e. the variation within each race, the continuum between each race, the limited relevance of intelligence, the pliability of genetics and genetic expressions, and so on). I fear that the more probable future is that liberals will instead fight with a deranged anti-scientific conspiracy, effectively crippling their own political power.

Let’s look out a bit further than the near term.  What would be the long-term consequences, that is, changes in society?  What might be the consequences of “enhanced conspiratorial thinking against the white race”?  Is your fear truly that the liberals will end up “crippling their own political power”?  What about 100 years from now—how will the US change?

 
Abel Dean
 
Avatar
 
 
Abel Dean
Total Posts:  427
Joined  03-11-2017
 
 
 
09 February 2019 12:35
 
hannahtoo - 09 February 2019 12:16 PM

Abel Dean:
So, I will now answer your two questions. I think hypothetical #2 is almost already the status quo, so there would not be much social difference, except for maybe an enhanced conspiratorial thinking against the white race. Supposing hypothetical #1, then white nationalism would be an open part of the platform of the Republican Party. The Democratic Party would oppose them not by denying the science but instead emphasizing the scientific truths in their favor (i.e. the variation within each race, the continuum between each race, the limited relevance of intelligence, the pliability of genetics and genetic expressions, and so on). I fear that the more probable future is that liberals will instead fight with a deranged anti-scientific conspiracy, effectively crippling their own political power.

Let’s look out a bit further than the near term.  What would be the long-term consequences, that is, changes in society?  What might be the consequences of “enhanced conspiratorial thinking against the white race”?  Is your fear truly that the liberals will end up “crippling their own political power”?  What about 100 years from now—how will the US change?

I have in mind two possible futures. The more probable future is that the open publication of the data of genome-wide association studies (such as the “All of US Research Program”) involving millions of test subjects will be a political game changer all over the western world. It will prove the science favored by white nationalists correct beyond reasonable doubt. If liberals remain deluded and can not effectively respond, then they will lose power, at the expense of democracy. But, there is another possibility. Perhaps laws will change, and perhaps the genome-wide association studies will lose their funding before completion, or perhaps access to the data will remained confined to only a privileged few anti-racist academics. If so, then liberals will still be scientifically deluded, but they will maintain their current share of power. If so, then disadvantaged races will continue to gain in relative numbers among otherwise-white nations with time, due to both immigration and fertility. Whites will still have disproportionate wealth and power, a racial gap that will only increase with time, and so the anti-white conspiracism proclaimed by academics today will increase in both popularity and zeal. Whites will become a progressively slimmer minority with time, but with increasingly disproportionate wealth, and the anti-white conspiracism will evolve into a violent popular rage. Democratic law will be used to forcefully seize property from whites, starting with the openly “racist” whites, progressing toward the implicitly racist whites (all whites), because they deserve it. I am far from certain with such a prediction, but it has plausibility, because it is now openly happening in South Africa.

 
burt
 
Avatar
 
 
burt
Total Posts:  15786
Joined  17-12-2006
 
 
 
09 February 2019 13:29
 
Abel Dean - 09 February 2019 12:35 PM
hannahtoo - 09 February 2019 12:16 PM

Abel Dean:
So, I will now answer your two questions. I think hypothetical #2 is almost already the status quo, so there would not be much social difference, except for maybe an enhanced conspiratorial thinking against the white race. Supposing hypothetical #1, then white nationalism would be an open part of the platform of the Republican Party. The Democratic Party would oppose them not by denying the science but instead emphasizing the scientific truths in their favor (i.e. the variation within each race, the continuum between each race, the limited relevance of intelligence, the pliability of genetics and genetic expressions, and so on). I fear that the more probable future is that liberals will instead fight with a deranged anti-scientific conspiracy, effectively crippling their own political power.

Let’s look out a bit further than the near term.  What would be the long-term consequences, that is, changes in society?  What might be the consequences of “enhanced conspiratorial thinking against the white race”?  Is your fear truly that the liberals will end up “crippling their own political power”?  What about 100 years from now—how will the US change?

I have in mind two possible futures. The more probable future is that the open publication of the data of genome-wide association studies (such as the “All of US Research Program”) involving millions of test subjects will be a political game changer all over the western world. It will prove the science favored by white nationalists correct beyond reasonable doubt. If liberals remain deluded and can not effectively respond, then they will lose power, at the expense of democracy. But, there is another possibility. Perhaps laws will change, and perhaps the genome-wide association studies will lose their funding before completion, or perhaps access to the data will remained confined to only a privileged few anti-racist academics. If so, then liberals will still be scientifically deluded, but they will maintain their current share of power. If so, then disadvantaged races will continue to gain in relative numbers among otherwise-white nations with time, due to both immigration and fertility. Whites will still have disproportionate wealth and power, a racial gap that will only increase with time, and so the anti-white conspiracism proclaimed by academics today will increase in both popularity and zeal. Whites will become a progressively slimmer minority with time, but with increasingly disproportionate wealth, and the anti-white conspiracism will evolve into a violent popular rage. Democratic law will be used to forcefully seize property from whites, starting with the openly “racist” whites, progressing toward the implicitly racist whites (all whites), because they deserve it. I am far from certain with such a prediction, but it has plausibility, because it is now openly happening in South Africa.

What a deluded, conspiracy infested, and in the end nihilistic view. Let’s get real. How much cash on the line are you willing to bet that if the finally accepted data from “genome-wide association studies” is found that this data will support your racist beliefs? Your problem, Mr. Dean, is that your strongest identifications are as being a white male, not as being a human being.

[ Edited: 09 February 2019 13:32 by burt]
 
Abel Dean
 
Avatar
 
 
Abel Dean
Total Posts:  427
Joined  03-11-2017
 
 
 
09 February 2019 14:29
 
burt - 09 February 2019 01:29 PM
Abel Dean - 09 February 2019 12:35 PM
hannahtoo - 09 February 2019 12:16 PM

Abel Dean:
So, I will now answer your two questions. I think hypothetical #2 is almost already the status quo, so there would not be much social difference, except for maybe an enhanced conspiratorial thinking against the white race. Supposing hypothetical #1, then white nationalism would be an open part of the platform of the Republican Party. The Democratic Party would oppose them not by denying the science but instead emphasizing the scientific truths in their favor (i.e. the variation within each race, the continuum between each race, the limited relevance of intelligence, the pliability of genetics and genetic expressions, and so on). I fear that the more probable future is that liberals will instead fight with a deranged anti-scientific conspiracy, effectively crippling their own political power.

Let’s look out a bit further than the near term.  What would be the long-term consequences, that is, changes in society?  What might be the consequences of “enhanced conspiratorial thinking against the white race”?  Is your fear truly that the liberals will end up “crippling their own political power”?  What about 100 years from now—how will the US change?

I have in mind two possible futures. The more probable future is that the open publication of the data of genome-wide association studies (such as the “All of US Research Program”) involving millions of test subjects will be a political game changer all over the western world. It will prove the science favored by white nationalists correct beyond reasonable doubt. If liberals remain deluded and can not effectively respond, then they will lose power, at the expense of democracy. But, there is another possibility. Perhaps laws will change, and perhaps the genome-wide association studies will lose their funding before completion, or perhaps access to the data will remained confined to only a privileged few anti-racist academics. If so, then liberals will still be scientifically deluded, but they will maintain their current share of power. If so, then disadvantaged races will continue to gain in relative numbers among otherwise-white nations with time, due to both immigration and fertility. Whites will still have disproportionate wealth and power, a racial gap that will only increase with time, and so the anti-white conspiracism proclaimed by academics today will increase in both popularity and zeal. Whites will become a progressively slimmer minority with time, but with increasingly disproportionate wealth, and the anti-white conspiracism will evolve into a violent popular rage. Democratic law will be used to forcefully seize property from whites, starting with the openly “racist” whites, progressing toward the implicitly racist whites (all whites), because they deserve it. I am far from certain with such a prediction, but it has plausibility, because it is now openly happening in South Africa.

What a deluded, conspiracy infested, and in the end nihilistic view. Let’s get real. How much cash on the line are you willing to bet that if the finally accepted data from “genome-wide association studies” is found that this data will support your racist beliefs? Your problem, Mr. Dean, is that your strongest identifications are as being a white male, not as being a human being.

If it is about the results of the genome-wide association studies and not about the social consequences, then the gamble would be far more in my favor. I would be willing to bet my 1000 dollars to your 100 dollars (10:1) that the genome-wide association studies will support my racist beliefs. It would be easy money, because the handful of existent alleles for intelligence and educational success already line up with my racist beliefs. Look up the papers of Davide Piffer. He found strong correlations between the frequencies of those alleles and population IQs. If the alleles for intelligence or educational success were not found, then I would have less certainty, as maybe racial intelligence differences are heritable but not a matter of differential alleles, maybe only differential epigenetic controls. Piffer did NOT find the expected correlation for racial height differences, as though the racial height differences are more a matter of epigenetics (plausible, as both epigenetics and height are strongly associated with sex differences). For intelligence, from what we already know, it really is just a matter of traditional genetics, so you making that bet with me would be like you giving me your money. I would not be stealing it. You would just hand it over.

 
burt
 
Avatar
 
 
burt
Total Posts:  15786
Joined  17-12-2006
 
 
 
09 February 2019 14:54
 
Abel Dean - 09 February 2019 02:29 PM
burt - 09 February 2019 01:29 PM
Abel Dean - 09 February 2019 12:35 PM
hannahtoo - 09 February 2019 12:16 PM

Abel Dean:
So, I will now answer your two questions. I think hypothetical #2 is almost already the status quo, so there would not be much social difference, except for maybe an enhanced conspiratorial thinking against the white race. Supposing hypothetical #1, then white nationalism would be an open part of the platform of the Republican Party. The Democratic Party would oppose them not by denying the science but instead emphasizing the scientific truths in their favor (i.e. the variation within each race, the continuum between each race, the limited relevance of intelligence, the pliability of genetics and genetic expressions, and so on). I fear that the more probable future is that liberals will instead fight with a deranged anti-scientific conspiracy, effectively crippling their own political power.

Let’s look out a bit further than the near term.  What would be the long-term consequences, that is, changes in society?  What might be the consequences of “enhanced conspiratorial thinking against the white race”?  Is your fear truly that the liberals will end up “crippling their own political power”?  What about 100 years from now—how will the US change?

I have in mind two possible futures. The more probable future is that the open publication of the data of genome-wide association studies (such as the “All of US Research Program”) involving millions of test subjects will be a political game changer all over the western world. It will prove the science favored by white nationalists correct beyond reasonable doubt. If liberals remain deluded and can not effectively respond, then they will lose power, at the expense of democracy. But, there is another possibility. Perhaps laws will change, and perhaps the genome-wide association studies will lose their funding before completion, or perhaps access to the data will remained confined to only a privileged few anti-racist academics. If so, then liberals will still be scientifically deluded, but they will maintain their current share of power. If so, then disadvantaged races will continue to gain in relative numbers among otherwise-white nations with time, due to both immigration and fertility. Whites will still have disproportionate wealth and power, a racial gap that will only increase with time, and so the anti-white conspiracism proclaimed by academics today will increase in both popularity and zeal. Whites will become a progressively slimmer minority with time, but with increasingly disproportionate wealth, and the anti-white conspiracism will evolve into a violent popular rage. Democratic law will be used to forcefully seize property from whites, starting with the openly “racist” whites, progressing toward the implicitly racist whites (all whites), because they deserve it. I am far from certain with such a prediction, but it has plausibility, because it is now openly happening in South Africa.

What a deluded, conspiracy infested, and in the end nihilistic view. Let’s get real. How much cash on the line are you willing to bet that if the finally accepted data from “genome-wide association studies” is found that this data will support your racist beliefs? Your problem, Mr. Dean, is that your strongest identifications are as being a white male, not as being a human being.

If it is about the results of the genome-wide association studies and not about the social consequences, then the gamble would be far more in my favor. I would be willing to bet my 1000 dollars to your 100 dollars (10:1) that the genome-wide association studies will support my racist beliefs. It would be easy money, because the handful of existent alleles for intelligence and educational success already line up with my racist beliefs. Look up the papers of Davide Piffer. He found strong correlations between the frequencies of those alleles and population IQs. If the alleles for intelligence or educational success were not found, then I would have less certainty, as maybe racial intelligence differences are heritable but not a matter of differential alleles, maybe only differential epigenetic controls. Piffer did NOT find the expected correlation for racial height differences, as though the racial height differences are more a matter of epigenetics (plausible, as both epigenetics and height are strongly associated with sex differences). For intelligence, from what we already know, it really is just a matter of traditional genetics, so you making that bet with me would be like you giving me your money. I would not be stealing it. You would just hand it over.

You are on. My 100 against your 1,000. Let’s take a review of the state of the art on January 1, 2020 and deciding whether the data is in. Anybody reading this thread is a witness.

Love the sort of “experts” you’re appealing to:
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Davide_Piffer
https://www.reddit.com/r/genetics/comments/7n5h0b/how_to_evaluate_a_study_gwas/

 
Abel Dean
 
Avatar
 
 
Abel Dean
Total Posts:  427
Joined  03-11-2017
 
 
 
09 February 2019 14:57
 

Only a year from now? The All of Us Research Program is estimated to take at least ten years before completion. I am not sure what outcome would count as a win a year from now.

 
Nhoj Morley
 
Avatar
 
 
Nhoj Morley
Total Posts:  6312
Joined  22-02-2005
 
 
 
09 February 2019 18:07
 

Gosh. That is the full mayo spread with marshmallows. I have heard this tale before as far back as the ‘80’s. Your tale has the same ironic twists. The liberal opposition will employ emotion-tainted reasoning while you lads bank on objective science to render your emotions beside the point.

Many share your sense of crunch time in facing an existential threat. Having gotten yourselves into this predicament, how does this crisis demonstrate either a) intelligence, or b) genetic superiority?

What do think humans are suppose to be or do?

 
 
Abel Dean
 
Avatar
 
 
Abel Dean
Total Posts:  427
Joined  03-11-2017
 
 
 
09 February 2019 18:20
 
Nhoj Morley - 09 February 2019 06:07 PM

Gosh. That is the full mayo spread with marshmallows. I have heard this tale before as far back as the ‘80’s. Your tale has the same ironic twists. The liberal opposition will employ emotion-tainted reasoning while you lads bank on objective science to render your emotions beside the point.

Many share your sense of crunch time in facing an existential threat. Having gotten yourselves into this predicament, how does this crisis demonstrate either a) intelligence, or b) genetic superiority?

What do think humans are suppose to be or do?

I am sorry, I can’t map anything you are saying onto anything I am saying. I don’t know who you think my “lads” are, I don’t know what you heard in the eighties, I don’t know what you mean by the “predicament,”  and I never said anything about genetic superiority.

 
hannahtoo
 
Avatar
 
 
hannahtoo
Total Posts:  7176
Joined  15-05-2009
 
 
 
09 February 2019 18:36
 

I wonder, Mr. Dean, how do you judge the Northerners in the Civil War?  Were they misguided in fighting for emancipation of the black slaves?

 
Abel Dean
 
Avatar
 
 
Abel Dean
Total Posts:  427
Joined  03-11-2017
 
 
 
09 February 2019 18:53
 
hannahtoo - 09 February 2019 06:36 PM

I wonder, Mr. Dean, how do you judge the Northerners in the Civil War?  Were they misguided in fighting for emancipation of the black slaves?

I am opposed to slavery, and I have an intermediate judgment of the North of the Civil War. The freedom of the slaves may not have been worth the death of nearly a million whites followed by a monstrously powerful federal government persisting forever. Had Northerners correctly anticipated the cost of the war, I expect they would have allowed the South to secede. From the beginning, America should never have had slaves. Southerners oppose slavery today, so they tend to have a misleading perception of the politics of the Civil War in defense of the South. They think it was all about states’s rights. Yeah, it was, but specifically it was about the right to own slaves. One way or the other, Lincoln’s victory crippled states’ rights of every sort, not just the right to own slaves.

 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  17472
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
09 February 2019 19:05
 
Abel Dean - 09 February 2019 06:53 PM

I am opposed to slavery, and I have an intermediate judgment of the North of the Civil War. The freedom of the slaves may not have been worth the death of nearly a million whites followed by a monstrously powerful federal government persisting forever. Had Northerners correctly anticipated the cost of the war, I expect they would have allowed the South to secede. From the beginning, America should never have had slaves. Southerners oppose slavery today, so they tend to have a misleading perception of the politics of the Civil War in defense of the South. They think it was all about states’s rights. Yeah, it was, but specifically it was about the right to own slaves. One way or the other, Lincoln’s victory crippled states’ rights of every sort, not just the right to own slaves.

Slavery is as wrong a wrong as any war has been fought for and the cost wasn’t any different the cost of any war.

 
 
Abel Dean
 
Avatar
 
 
Abel Dean
Total Posts:  427
Joined  03-11-2017
 
 
 
09 February 2019 19:10
 
GAD - 09 February 2019 07:05 PM
Abel Dean - 09 February 2019 06:53 PM

I am opposed to slavery, and I have an intermediate judgment of the North of the Civil War. The freedom of the slaves may not have been worth the death of nearly a million whites followed by a monstrously powerful federal government persisting forever. Had Northerners correctly anticipated the cost of the war, I expect they would have allowed the South to secede. From the beginning, America should never have had slaves. Southerners oppose slavery today, so they tend to have a misleading perception of the politics of the Civil War in defense of the South. They think it was all about states’s rights. Yeah, it was, but specifically it was about the right to own slaves. One way or the other, Lincoln’s victory crippled states’ rights of every sort, not just the right to own slaves.

Slavery is as wrong a wrong as any war has been fought for and the cost wasn’t any different the cost of any war.

Wars have varying costs, and the Civil War had perhaps the highest death count of any American war. Slavery persisting for another fifty years or so is a heavy cost on the other side of the scales, and I don’t discount it.

 
hannahtoo
 
Avatar
 
 
hannahtoo
Total Posts:  7176
Joined  15-05-2009
 
 
 
09 February 2019 19:45
 
Abel Dean - 09 February 2019 06:53 PM
hannahtoo - 09 February 2019 06:36 PM

I wonder, Mr. Dean, how do you judge the Northerners in the Civil War?  Were they misguided in fighting for emancipation of the black slaves?

I am opposed to slavery, and I have an intermediate judgment of the North of the Civil War. The freedom of the slaves may not have been worth the death of nearly a million whites followed by a monstrously powerful federal government persisting forever. Had Northerners correctly anticipated the cost of the war, I expect they would have allowed the South to secede. From the beginning, America should never have had slaves. Southerners oppose slavery today, so they tend to have a misleading perception of the politics of the Civil War in defense of the South. They think it was all about states’s rights. Yeah, it was, but specifically it was about the right to own slaves. One way or the other, Lincoln’s victory crippled states’ rights of every sort, not just the right to own slaves.

I consider the racial tensions in the US today to be largely a continuing fallout from the institution of slavery.  The people you call “liberals” today hold similar principles to those of the people who fought against slavery, supported the Emancipation Proclamation, and the 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution.  (It is kind of amazing that the Voting Rights Act needed to be passed nearly 100 years later.)

Martin Luther King inspired us to judge people not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.  I see aspiring to that standard as essential for a just society. 

I agree with you that “whites will become a slimmer minority with time.”  It is natural that there will be more and more intermarriage.  I disagree with your siege view of the future, however.  It is based on whites trying to wall themselves off from others.  Can you imagine instead a future in which people of color continue to become more educated and more entrepreneurial and share in solving humanity’s problems?

 
Abel Dean
 
Avatar
 
 
Abel Dean
Total Posts:  427
Joined  03-11-2017
 
 
 
09 February 2019 20:04
 
hannahtoo - 09 February 2019 07:45 PM
Abel Dean - 09 February 2019 06:53 PM
hannahtoo - 09 February 2019 06:36 PM

I wonder, Mr. Dean, how do you judge the Northerners in the Civil War?  Were they misguided in fighting for emancipation of the black slaves?

I am opposed to slavery, and I have an intermediate judgment of the North of the Civil War. The freedom of the slaves may not have been worth the death of nearly a million whites followed by a monstrously powerful federal government persisting forever. Had Northerners correctly anticipated the cost of the war, I expect they would have allowed the South to secede. From the beginning, America should never have had slaves. Southerners oppose slavery today, so they tend to have a misleading perception of the politics of the Civil War in defense of the South. They think it was all about states’s rights. Yeah, it was, but specifically it was about the right to own slaves. One way or the other, Lincoln’s victory crippled states’ rights of every sort, not just the right to own slaves.

I consider the racial tensions in the US today to be largely a continuing fallout from the institution of slavery.  The people you call “liberals” today hold similar principles to those of the people who fought against slavery, supported the Emancipation Proclamation, and the 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution.  (It is kind of amazing that the Voting Rights Act needed to be passed nearly 100 years later.)

Martin Luther King inspired us to judge people not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.  I see aspiring to that standard as essential for a just society. 

I agree with you that “whites will become a slimmer minority with time.”  It is natural that there will be more and more intermarriage.  I disagree with your siege view of the future, however.  It is based on whites trying to wall themselves off from others.  Can you imagine instead a future in which people of color continue to become more educated and more entrepreneurial and share in solving humanity’s problems?

“Can you imagine instead a future in which people of color continue to become more educated and more entrepreneurial and share in solving humanity’s problems?”

Yes, I think that would be great. From the beginning, I have suggested a way to do exactly that, and it was dismissed, denounced and ridiculed as racist. I suggested genetic editing for greater intelligence of the disadvantaged races. We have not effectively separated our ideals of human nature from our beliefs about human nature, but we have allowed the former to govern the latter. It would be great if Martin Luther King was correct in every way, not just in some ways. Suppose that the color of our skins objectively had no statistical relation to anything about our brains. That is the way the universe ought to be. That isn’t the way it is. Our delusions about human nature mean that we have wrong beliefs about the future. It will be increasingly difficult to get a multiracial utopia in a world that has persisting objective racial inequities of every sort.

 
hannahtoo
 
Avatar
 
 
hannahtoo
Total Posts:  7176
Joined  15-05-2009
 
 
 
10 February 2019 08:06
 
Abel Dean - 09 February 2019 08:04 PM
hannahtoo - 09 February 2019 07:45 PM
Abel Dean - 09 February 2019 06:53 PM
hannahtoo - 09 February 2019 06:36 PM

I wonder, Mr. Dean, how do you judge the Northerners in the Civil War?  Were they misguided in fighting for emancipation of the black slaves?

I am opposed to slavery, and I have an intermediate judgment of the North of the Civil War. The freedom of the slaves may not have been worth the death of nearly a million whites followed by a monstrously powerful federal government persisting forever. Had Northerners correctly anticipated the cost of the war, I expect they would have allowed the South to secede. From the beginning, America should never have had slaves. Southerners oppose slavery today, so they tend to have a misleading perception of the politics of the Civil War in defense of the South. They think it was all about states’s rights. Yeah, it was, but specifically it was about the right to own slaves. One way or the other, Lincoln’s victory crippled states’ rights of every sort, not just the right to own slaves.

I consider the racial tensions in the US today to be largely a continuing fallout from the institution of slavery.  The people you call “liberals” today hold similar principles to those of the people who fought against slavery, supported the Emancipation Proclamation, and the 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution.  (It is kind of amazing that the Voting Rights Act needed to be passed nearly 100 years later.)

Martin Luther King inspired us to judge people not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.  I see aspiring to that standard as essential for a just society. 

I agree with you that “whites will become a slimmer minority with time.”  It is natural that there will be more and more intermarriage.  I disagree with your siege view of the future, however.  It is based on whites trying to wall themselves off from others.  Can you imagine instead a future in which people of color continue to become more educated and more entrepreneurial and share in solving humanity’s problems?

“Can you imagine instead a future in which people of color continue to become more educated and more entrepreneurial and share in solving humanity’s problems?”

Yes, I think that would be great. From the beginning, I have suggested a way to do exactly that, and it was dismissed, denounced and ridiculed as racist. I suggested genetic editing for greater intelligence of the disadvantaged races. We have not effectively separated our ideals of human nature from our beliefs about human nature, but we have allowed the former to govern the latter. It would be great if Martin Luther King was correct in every way, not just in some ways. Suppose that the color of our skins objectively had no statistical relation to anything about our brains. That is the way the universe ought to be. That isn’t the way it is. Our delusions about human nature mean that we have wrong beliefs about the future. It will be increasingly difficult to get a multiracial utopia in a world that has persisting objective racial inequities of every sort.

Using genetic editing for greater intelligence is impractical, even if it were theoretically plausible (which I doubt).  What would be the fate of all the inevitable failed trials (damaged children) created in the quest for this goal?

Would it not make more sense for our society to improve education and increase employment opportunities for disadvantaged people?  Prejudice has unquestionably held people back.  Society’s efforts should go toward helping all members to achieve their potential. 

Imagine a plantation owner back in the early 1800’s.  Could he fathom that a black man, or even a man of mixed ancestry, would someday be accomplished, eloquent, and charismatic enough to be elected President of the US?  Certainly not.  And to guarantee the inferior status of the blacks, they were denigrated, brutalized, denied education, and their family ties were broken.  The legacy of this treatment continues into the present.  Our nation has been slow to awake from the nightmare and see the light of day.

 
 < 1 2 3 4 5 >  Last ›