Oh, Here We Go Again
I was reading an article the other day wherein the author makes a lot of assertions about what makes societies flourish and how certain individual actions related to breeding can be dysgenic and harm the ability for a society to remain stable or even extant.
He said several things I agreed with, for instance:
He also said things I disagreed with. I might be strawmanning him a little bit here, but he repeated things enough times for me to get a sense that this is what he believes:
He said several things I agreed with, for instance:
- Rights are just things that people make up (to put it bluntly)
- Breeding actions can be qualified as eugenic or dysgenic relative to an end
- Societies can fail or thrive depending on the traits of their members
- The traits of individuals which promote certain types of societies or the survival of societies in certain circumstances have significant genetic components
He also said things I disagreed with. I might be strawmanning him a little bit here, but he repeated things enough times for me to get a sense that this is what he believes:
You have a duty to promote good genes (other than in the context of people who demand that)
That said, he fell into the trap that soooo many people who "see the light" about rights fall into: not seeing the light about duty. It seems kind of unfair to not be able to ground your rights on something as solid as nature or god but be expected to perform because of the same. No, duties are just the demands of others (or yourself). They are as "made up" as rights are. While people can't be wrong about demands, they can be wrong about how reasonable other people consider such demands.
The author was saying that it might be necessary to force women of good breeding stock to bear children (for instance, those who have good IQ or something else that "society" "deems" "useful"). For the survival of society. And he's not necessarily technically incorrect. If children with high IQs are needed to perpetuate a society in certain circumstances and the women who are most likely to have high IQ children don't want to breed, then it might be a prerequisite of the survival of that society to force them to bear children.
My objection isn't against the logic behind that. My objection is broader: just because society needs something to continue doesn't mean that you have a motivational reason to do it or that it's advisable. What's hilarious to me is that this guy just got done saying that morality is a tool of man, not man's ruler, but he apparently doesn't recognize the same about society.
Granted, he didn't put it exactly in those terms, though that was the gist. He spent more time coming at it from a eugenic standpoint using genes and alleles.
This guy had the gall to say that, if people who should (relative to being good for society) don't breed, they're neglecting a duty to all their ancestors. Fuck that guy, seriously. Duty is demand and dead people don't demand anything. Who am I letting down? The blind process of evolution? There are ways to carry forth the beauty of human life without it needing to be through biological reproduction.
The author was saying that it might be necessary to force women of good breeding stock to bear children (for instance, those who have good IQ or something else that "society" "deems" "useful"). For the survival of society. And he's not necessarily technically incorrect. If children with high IQs are needed to perpetuate a society in certain circumstances and the women who are most likely to have high IQ children don't want to breed, then it might be a prerequisite of the survival of that society to force them to bear children.
My objection isn't against the logic behind that. My objection is broader: just because society needs something to continue doesn't mean that you have a motivational reason to do it or that it's advisable. What's hilarious to me is that this guy just got done saying that morality is a tool of man, not man's ruler, but he apparently doesn't recognize the same about society.
Granted, he didn't put it exactly in those terms, though that was the gist. He spent more time coming at it from a eugenic standpoint using genes and alleles.
This guy had the gall to say that, if people who should (relative to being good for society) don't breed, they're neglecting a duty to all their ancestors. Fuck that guy, seriously. Duty is demand and dead people don't demand anything. Who am I letting down? The blind process of evolution? There are ways to carry forth the beauty of human life without it needing to be through biological reproduction.
(Many) Moral Rules Have Genetic Underpinnings, Therefore You Can Only Promote Those Moral Systems by (Biological) Reproduction
I won't argue that a lot of what is considered good is based on genetic propensities which made it through the gauntlet of natural selection; all plants and animals are constructions built to spread genes. Any behaviors which have a strong genetic basis must promote their own survival by spreading or else such behavior will disappear from the population. J.B.S. Haldane famously wrote "I would lay down my life for two brothers or eight cousins" indicating that it's an evolutionarily "fair deal" to sacrifice the alleles you physically carry for the same alleles in others. In group/out group and caring about immediate family and children over others makes sense in this light (whether or not it came to pass because of it is a different story).
But both the author and Haldane miss an important point - humans aren't slaves to their genes in the same way that other organisms might be. Humans can and do care about other things besides spreading their genes. Some choose lives of celibacy to pursue other passions. By only some standards is celibacy wrong, and by no standards except one which appeals to one or more desires the individual already possesses is a demand to have children motivating to that individual.
Moreover, it may be cheaper to use alternative methods to make society more prosperous and stable. Humans are relatively cheap to produce, but expensive to raise. I've stated it several times elsewhere on this site and I continue to stand by it: raising well-adjusted productive members of society isn't cheap. Starting with good genes helps... A LOT, but it's not the only thing which matters. Given the following two strategies, which is more likely to make a stable society?
The first would seem to create 1 million smart children, except that regression to the mean doesn't guarantee they'll be as smart as their parents. Then there's the cost to raise the children so they can reach their potential. Additional humans also create additional conflicts and demand for scarce resources.
The second already worked to greatly lower the crime rate in society by raising the average IQ and reducing other criminal tendencies. It had a cost, but I'd argue there was less downside relative to the desires people generally have.
Memes can spread much faster than genes and someone with a good idea can reach others he's not strongly related to. Information is simple to reproduce and is non-rivalrous (though the mindspace to contain the idea is). Information doesn't itself compete for the same scarce resources that humans do.
That's not to say that eugenicists are incorrect about "genes matter" or that the egalitarians are correct that "all humans are equal," but it does pop a hole in the assertion that "good" moral rules can only continue by breeding. The propensity toward certain things can be shifted through the environment - both the non-human environment (in the case of leaded gasoline) and social tools such as punishment, reward, praise, and blame, inculcation, and instruction.
While it's less costly to bring out behaviors in those who already have genetic propensities toward those behaviors than those who don't, it's not necessarily less costly to create and raise those humans than to help other fulfill more of their potential.
But both the author and Haldane miss an important point - humans aren't slaves to their genes in the same way that other organisms might be. Humans can and do care about other things besides spreading their genes. Some choose lives of celibacy to pursue other passions. By only some standards is celibacy wrong, and by no standards except one which appeals to one or more desires the individual already possesses is a demand to have children motivating to that individual.
Moreover, it may be cheaper to use alternative methods to make society more prosperous and stable. Humans are relatively cheap to produce, but expensive to raise. I've stated it several times elsewhere on this site and I continue to stand by it: raising well-adjusted productive members of society isn't cheap. Starting with good genes helps... A LOT, but it's not the only thing which matters. Given the following two strategies, which is more likely to make a stable society?
- Have the 1000 top IQ individuals have 1000 children each
- Eliminate leaded gasoline
The first would seem to create 1 million smart children, except that regression to the mean doesn't guarantee they'll be as smart as their parents. Then there's the cost to raise the children so they can reach their potential. Additional humans also create additional conflicts and demand for scarce resources.
The second already worked to greatly lower the crime rate in society by raising the average IQ and reducing other criminal tendencies. It had a cost, but I'd argue there was less downside relative to the desires people generally have.
Memes can spread much faster than genes and someone with a good idea can reach others he's not strongly related to. Information is simple to reproduce and is non-rivalrous (though the mindspace to contain the idea is). Information doesn't itself compete for the same scarce resources that humans do.
That's not to say that eugenicists are incorrect about "genes matter" or that the egalitarians are correct that "all humans are equal," but it does pop a hole in the assertion that "good" moral rules can only continue by breeding. The propensity toward certain things can be shifted through the environment - both the non-human environment (in the case of leaded gasoline) and social tools such as punishment, reward, praise, and blame, inculcation, and instruction.
While it's less costly to bring out behaviors in those who already have genetic propensities toward those behaviors than those who don't, it's not necessarily less costly to create and raise those humans than to help other fulfill more of their potential.
You Owe Society
There are two possibilities that I can see: either morality (as a generator of interpersonal cooperation norms) has a large variance within human populations based on genetic differences (genes) or they are primarily the product of learning (memes). In the latter case, humans don't have to be slaves to their genes to propagate stable society because they can spread ideas and teach others. In the former case, society would become less stable if individuals with the genetic propensities for cooperation were outbred by those who didn't have such genetic propensities. The author was assuming the former was the case.
However, that's largely irrelevant if society is a tool of man not his master. So what if society is destroyed through dysgenic actions in 100 years? I'll be dead by then. If I don't already care, then why do I need to care? Remember that I completely reject the concept of some meta/floating moral ought; oughts deflate into expectation, demand, or prudent advice ONLY. Others can expect that I'll have children and be incorrect just as if I expected my car to run on water instead of gasoline. People can demand I have children, but so what? It comes down to prudence - make it worth my while. Of course, that includes threatening me with force and then politely offering to take such a threat away if I cooperate. That, in a nutshell, is the process of morality - finding faulty (desire-thwarting) desires in others and applying social suasion to change the strengths of those desires. Whether people believe that's what morality is or not is irrelevant - it's what it is.
At best, people could have - in the words of Desirism - "many and strong reasons" to promote intelligent/cooperative/friendly/non-violent people having children, even involuntarily, if those traits are largely genetic (which, for IQ they are at ~70% variance correlation). But, still, so what? I reject moral absolutism and a single "one true way" context. Norms compete in a moral ecosystem and can survive for as long as they can take mindshare away from other norms. Some may want society to survive, others may not give a shit. Presuming beliefs are correct and people can express their values appropriately, a balance between the two camps will be struck when the cost of fighting or converting one another equals the cost of letting others do their own thing.
Just let it go. While it's true that that which isn't effective of an end will be selected out if that end is a prerequisite of survival, if people don't care about survival or survival in the long run, then what's the problem? Not reproducing isn't homicide, it's genocide. Genes and humans are two different entities with different goals. If you don't believe that, go visit a cancer ward.
However, that's largely irrelevant if society is a tool of man not his master. So what if society is destroyed through dysgenic actions in 100 years? I'll be dead by then. If I don't already care, then why do I need to care? Remember that I completely reject the concept of some meta/floating moral ought; oughts deflate into expectation, demand, or prudent advice ONLY. Others can expect that I'll have children and be incorrect just as if I expected my car to run on water instead of gasoline. People can demand I have children, but so what? It comes down to prudence - make it worth my while. Of course, that includes threatening me with force and then politely offering to take such a threat away if I cooperate. That, in a nutshell, is the process of morality - finding faulty (desire-thwarting) desires in others and applying social suasion to change the strengths of those desires. Whether people believe that's what morality is or not is irrelevant - it's what it is.
At best, people could have - in the words of Desirism - "many and strong reasons" to promote intelligent/cooperative/friendly/non-violent people having children, even involuntarily, if those traits are largely genetic (which, for IQ they are at ~70% variance correlation). But, still, so what? I reject moral absolutism and a single "one true way" context. Norms compete in a moral ecosystem and can survive for as long as they can take mindshare away from other norms. Some may want society to survive, others may not give a shit. Presuming beliefs are correct and people can express their values appropriately, a balance between the two camps will be struck when the cost of fighting or converting one another equals the cost of letting others do their own thing.
Just let it go. While it's true that that which isn't effective of an end will be selected out if that end is a prerequisite of survival, if people don't care about survival or survival in the long run, then what's the problem? Not reproducing isn't homicide, it's genocide. Genes and humans are two different entities with different goals. If you don't believe that, go visit a cancer ward.
