Most people on the alternative right have come to accept that genetics account for a decent amount of the variance in behaviour and that this extends to social classes and races as well.
“The successful and the well-bred have little to gain from cooperating to promote heredity as a political program, while the rest of the populace have much more to gain from promoting redistribution and rent-seeking operations. Advocates for the inefficacy of social interventions and eugenics will not be perceived as the better angels of our nature, but as political actors who are promoting the interests of a certain group over another.”
Honestly, I don’t want other social interventions, since they are likely ineffective, but income redistribution could be of significant value because eugenics is very difficult for a low-income person such as myself to do. I would need to find a smart egg donor and a couple of Mexican surrogates (the American ones are too expensive) if I will be unable to find a suitable mate, and all of this will cost an extraordinary amount of money. And to be fair, I do wish that I was living a bit better, having more opportunities for income-earning (I am very good with history, but hard to convert that to income in this day and age, especially for an autistic white male). Hopefully the AI revolution will eventually make all of us richer.
One social intervention that could have value, if actually politically feasible, is to make welfare access contingent on Norplant and/or Vasalgel injections, or at least to give people who get such injections much more generous welfare payments. Could have a eugenic effect.
´´Hereditarianism also implies that “unfair” causes of status (e.g. family background, luck) are less relevant than the ones that cannot really be attacked on moral grounds (genes). Because of this, people who favour redistribution and rent-seeking will try to deny heredity, while those who do not favour these policies will argue that the differences between the successful and the unsuccessful are genetic.´´
This is wrong. First of all, one can absolutely attack genes as unfair and this is already done. For example, liberal and socialist philosophers, when arguing why income inequality is unfair, will argue that the effect of genes in creating differences in people's abilities, is one reason why income inequality arising from differences in abilities is unfair. Just as an individual cannot choose the parents who raise him, he also cannot choose his genes, this is the most obvious argument in the world.
You just don't see this argument in the mainstream these days, because hereditarianism has become such a taboo, but the creators of the Welfare State were often hereditarians who explicitly argued that redistribution to the poor was moral because the poor could not be morally culpable for having the genes that they have, it would then be immoral to let the poor suffer from material deprivation. If hereditarianism were to become dominant again, leftists would just have to return to those arguments.
One policy that hereditarianism would make very difficult to defend is low-skilled immigration, because nowadays the justification for low-skilled immigration is often that the children and grandchildren of these immigrants will integrate and become like natives. Of course, this wouldn't be an argument against high-skilled immigration, and one always has the option of just being a pro-open border utilitarian like Bryan Caplan.
It is difficult to see how conspiracy theories about White privilege could survive hereditarianism, because these conspiracies are dependent on a factual version of the world where hereditarianism does not exist, where every group has exactly the same abilities on average, and where therefore group inequalities are attributable to evil actions on the part of White people.
>First of all, one can absolutely attack genes as unfair and this is already done
From a "cosmological" perspective maybe, but it doesn't appeal to people's fairness instincts the same way. Redistributing wealth based on appeals to the fact that wealth/income is dumb luck or caused by unfair advantages that high status parents give to their children is more effective than appeals to genetics -- people naturally infer that genetic influences are probably due to ability (which is highly heritable), and meritocracy is seen as fair (by most, at least).
Of course if you deconstruct everything in a rational way, it doesn't make sense, because morality does not make sense.
It's unfair from a moral perspective. Why do you deserve to make more money because your genes give you a higher IQ? Or why does someone deserve to live in poverty because he has an extremely low IQ? What is the moral justification for any of this? It's easy to imagine arguments against this, like the fact that no one chooses their genes, or just arguments about utilitarianism and maximizing utility for the greatest number of people or getting a lot of utility from improving the material well-being of people at the bottom of society.
Regarding people's sense of morality, you probably think that mainstream arguments used today are more effective because that's all you see being used. Most people are very easily convinced that genes are a source of injustice, and I think most people already believe that, even if not explicitly.
For example, imagine a person who is in favor of providing homes for homeless people (most Americans and Europeans support such a policy), now imagine telling that person that the homeless are homeless because their genes give them a low IQ plus other socially undesirable characteristics, will this information change that person's moral calculus? I don't see how, and if anything, this excuses the homeless from moral responsibility for their condition, which will disarm arguments against helping them.
The majority of the population supports meritocracy in the sense that they think people should generally be employed in jobs/positions that they are qualified to do, the utilitarian justification for this is obvious, what people don't support is not compensating the losers of meritocracy, not compressing incomes to any extent, and not establishing a floor from which people cannot fall below.
Your article is based on obsolete information. Back in the 80s on the basis of twin studies, behavior geneticists estimated that IQ was highly heritable and was in the .7 to .9 range that you mention. However, more recent research has found that the heritability has to be lower. IQ is highly dependent on environmental factors. Adoption studies have shown that you can raise children's IQs by 20 points! Average IQ scores across many different societies have been rising by 3 points per decade, which is evidence of significant environmental impact. https://open.substack.com/pub/eclecticinquiries/p/on-race-racism-iq-and-heritability?r=4952v2&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
Would you really have no problem, if you have kids (I don't know if you do) with their class/school being stuffed with sub-saharans (for example)? No view on it? Would you not bother to send them to private schools? I struggle to believe this. Someone on that post brings up what might be a good point, that they don't ruin already-bad schools, but might make good ones bad.
The same with money. Do you not care at all about money, then? Would you happily sacrifice most of your net worth?
In my view, accepting HBD would actually be very helpful to the left. As someone else has pointed out, no longer could the right speak of pulling yourself up by your bootstraps, because this would be accepted to be impossible for many. Instead, it would create a moral case for supporting poorer people and alleviating their suffering, as they have no ability to help themselves due to their genetics.
Thank you for the clear explanation (examples) of the aspect of heredity and environmental efforts to change such effect. I fear I’ve often related such incorrectly in argument. I shall watch myself more closely in the future. ;-)
> choice independent of genetics and environment is impossible. Philosophers settled this issue years ago.
It’s not true this is a settled issue in philosophy. Why do you think (libertarian) free will is impossible?
This was very thought out, did a phenomenal job with this. Good work.
Great article!
“The successful and the well-bred have little to gain from cooperating to promote heredity as a political program, while the rest of the populace have much more to gain from promoting redistribution and rent-seeking operations. Advocates for the inefficacy of social interventions and eugenics will not be perceived as the better angels of our nature, but as political actors who are promoting the interests of a certain group over another.”
Honestly, I don’t want other social interventions, since they are likely ineffective, but income redistribution could be of significant value because eugenics is very difficult for a low-income person such as myself to do. I would need to find a smart egg donor and a couple of Mexican surrogates (the American ones are too expensive) if I will be unable to find a suitable mate, and all of this will cost an extraordinary amount of money. And to be fair, I do wish that I was living a bit better, having more opportunities for income-earning (I am very good with history, but hard to convert that to income in this day and age, especially for an autistic white male). Hopefully the AI revolution will eventually make all of us richer.
One social intervention that could have value, if actually politically feasible, is to make welfare access contingent on Norplant and/or Vasalgel injections, or at least to give people who get such injections much more generous welfare payments. Could have a eugenic effect.
´´Hereditarianism also implies that “unfair” causes of status (e.g. family background, luck) are less relevant than the ones that cannot really be attacked on moral grounds (genes). Because of this, people who favour redistribution and rent-seeking will try to deny heredity, while those who do not favour these policies will argue that the differences between the successful and the unsuccessful are genetic.´´
This is wrong. First of all, one can absolutely attack genes as unfair and this is already done. For example, liberal and socialist philosophers, when arguing why income inequality is unfair, will argue that the effect of genes in creating differences in people's abilities, is one reason why income inequality arising from differences in abilities is unfair. Just as an individual cannot choose the parents who raise him, he also cannot choose his genes, this is the most obvious argument in the world.
You just don't see this argument in the mainstream these days, because hereditarianism has become such a taboo, but the creators of the Welfare State were often hereditarians who explicitly argued that redistribution to the poor was moral because the poor could not be morally culpable for having the genes that they have, it would then be immoral to let the poor suffer from material deprivation. If hereditarianism were to become dominant again, leftists would just have to return to those arguments.
One policy that hereditarianism would make very difficult to defend is low-skilled immigration, because nowadays the justification for low-skilled immigration is often that the children and grandchildren of these immigrants will integrate and become like natives. Of course, this wouldn't be an argument against high-skilled immigration, and one always has the option of just being a pro-open border utilitarian like Bryan Caplan.
It is difficult to see how conspiracy theories about White privilege could survive hereditarianism, because these conspiracies are dependent on a factual version of the world where hereditarianism does not exist, where every group has exactly the same abilities on average, and where therefore group inequalities are attributable to evil actions on the part of White people.
>First of all, one can absolutely attack genes as unfair and this is already done
From a "cosmological" perspective maybe, but it doesn't appeal to people's fairness instincts the same way. Redistributing wealth based on appeals to the fact that wealth/income is dumb luck or caused by unfair advantages that high status parents give to their children is more effective than appeals to genetics -- people naturally infer that genetic influences are probably due to ability (which is highly heritable), and meritocracy is seen as fair (by most, at least).
Of course if you deconstruct everything in a rational way, it doesn't make sense, because morality does not make sense.
It's unfair from a moral perspective. Why do you deserve to make more money because your genes give you a higher IQ? Or why does someone deserve to live in poverty because he has an extremely low IQ? What is the moral justification for any of this? It's easy to imagine arguments against this, like the fact that no one chooses their genes, or just arguments about utilitarianism and maximizing utility for the greatest number of people or getting a lot of utility from improving the material well-being of people at the bottom of society.
Regarding people's sense of morality, you probably think that mainstream arguments used today are more effective because that's all you see being used. Most people are very easily convinced that genes are a source of injustice, and I think most people already believe that, even if not explicitly.
For example, imagine a person who is in favor of providing homes for homeless people (most Americans and Europeans support such a policy), now imagine telling that person that the homeless are homeless because their genes give them a low IQ plus other socially undesirable characteristics, will this information change that person's moral calculus? I don't see how, and if anything, this excuses the homeless from moral responsibility for their condition, which will disarm arguments against helping them.
The majority of the population supports meritocracy in the sense that they think people should generally be employed in jobs/positions that they are qualified to do, the utilitarian justification for this is obvious, what people don't support is not compensating the losers of meritocracy, not compressing incomes to any extent, and not establishing a floor from which people cannot fall below.
Yes indeed. As I’ve always said to my children “life isn’t fair”. ;-) You express the hereditarianism dilemma well.
You have a typo: "bot" instead of not
Your article is based on obsolete information. Back in the 80s on the basis of twin studies, behavior geneticists estimated that IQ was highly heritable and was in the .7 to .9 range that you mention. However, more recent research has found that the heritability has to be lower. IQ is highly dependent on environmental factors. Adoption studies have shown that you can raise children's IQs by 20 points! Average IQ scores across many different societies have been rising by 3 points per decade, which is evidence of significant environmental impact. https://open.substack.com/pub/eclecticinquiries/p/on-race-racism-iq-and-heritability?r=4952v2&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
You should make a GQI (genetic quality index) containing IQ and personality. , smv, etc
Would you really have no problem, if you have kids (I don't know if you do) with their class/school being stuffed with sub-saharans (for example)? No view on it? Would you not bother to send them to private schools? I struggle to believe this. Someone on that post brings up what might be a good point, that they don't ruin already-bad schools, but might make good ones bad.
The same with money. Do you not care at all about money, then? Would you happily sacrifice most of your net worth?
In my view, accepting HBD would actually be very helpful to the left. As someone else has pointed out, no longer could the right speak of pulling yourself up by your bootstraps, because this would be accepted to be impossible for many. Instead, it would create a moral case for supporting poorer people and alleviating their suffering, as they have no ability to help themselves due to their genetics.
Thank you for the clear explanation (examples) of the aspect of heredity and environmental efforts to change such effect. I fear I’ve often related such incorrectly in argument. I shall watch myself more closely in the future. ;-)