« Netflix and married people | Main | In front of Bergdorf Goodman »

April 02, 2009

Comments

I agree with you to an extent. The underclass is basically hopeless but even conservatives don't want to come out and say it.

That said, I think a better solution is to look for drugs which will increase peoples' IQ. There are drugs which increase your height and drugs which increase your strength. Logically, it seems likely that such a drug could be found for intelligence.

Yep, I still agree with you, H. Sigma.

"The conservatives refuse to acknowledge that a person genetically predisposed to low intelligence and low future time orientation, furthermore corrupted by low class values, probably won't be able to rise to the challenge."

Well, which challenge? If the challenge is getting a college education and an office job, you're right, they're doomed to fail. (And society defining that as the only path to success dooms them to fail.) If the challenge is showing up on time to a laboring job, then that's entirely possible.

There's no inherent reason a person with an 80 - 100 IQ can't support themselves and even a family! In fact its been done, to one degree or another, through most of recorded history. High inflation, higher taxes on workers that keep them from paying for families, regulatory burdens on entry-level workers, open immigration, and the siren of welfare all work against middle class values and self-support; repealing those policies could return us to a state where welfare simply isn't needed except for the truly disabled.

(Typing the above, though, I almost begin to take your point. Sterilization for welfare cases may not be less likely than sanity on monetary policy, welfare and immigration.)

You're right to champion middle class values. I would guess that a low time preference and lower-class ethics are a higher hurdle than a low IQ. (And IQ and time preference may be highly correlated, but they are still distinct.)

"The conservative approach will probably work for some poor people, but most are hopeless."

Actually, the liberal approach will work for some poor people too. The problem is that the people it works for are no longer poor. So the people who are left are truly hopeless.

"All things we perceive to be “social problems” have their roots in HBD".

Some problems may be caused by HBD, but surely not all. The people of the Korean peninsula have nearly uniform genetics, but South Korea is a prosperous, relatively free country, while North Korea is a totalitarian nightmare. It seems reasonable to assume that cultural problems are at least partially responsible for holding back other ethnic groups, too.

sterilization is abetter solution, but it is unrealistic because it would be a complete revolution in the society's values

drug testing is an evolution, a small step in the right direction. it will allow people to see things that are hidden now. For example, low class people lack future orientation, so they will be unable to realize that you can't use drugs today if your test is scheduled for monday. It will show the widespread consumption of drugs in the lower classes

It will hopefully lead to sterilization someday

Isn't it possible that we require a certain amount of people to occupy those social strata; to do jobs that someone with middle class values wouldn't want to do? I often see a sort of "it's beneath me" when people talk about being an engineer vs a doctor or lawyer, ie the middle class position is more of a status than an anything meritocratic.

If everyone ran to the door that had the middle class jobs, we'd be left without a whole bunch of folks in the skilled labor section at least, possibly even without a service sector to boot.

"Conservatives also believe that they can turn poor people into middle class people. The conservative solution is to give poor people the proper incentives."

I wouldn't say the conservative goal is to "turn" people middle class. We need more self reliance and productive work whatever the class. Some of our sclerotic European cousins have 30% of their populations living off the dole. No good comes of this.

Next topic: deal with the self imposed sterilization via middle class non-replacement fertility.

HS:
Welcome aboard. I have advocated sterilization for those receiving welfare for more than say two years, for decades.

I think a more politically viable approach (although still very unlikely in this day of global socialism) is to advocate for a return to private charity welfare (first by 'outsourcing' via subsidies to such organizations, then slowly removing the government teat from the parasitic class). Then people can donate to those organizations who include voluntary sterilization in exchange for help. Especially with technology allowing for temporary and reversible sterilization, those who do become self-sufficient do not have to worry about long-term consequences (not that future time orientation is a trait these people likely have).

What AshleyZ said.

I believe in HBD, but you don't do your cause any favors when you oversimplify things to such an extent.

For example, according to GSS data, white women of below average intelligence seem to have the same number of children as white women of above intelligence, but black women of below average intelligence have far more children than black women of above average intelligence or white women of comparable intelligence. Surely this suggests something in underclass black - but not underclass white - culture is driving high fertility for this population and exacerbating existing inequality?

http://congenialtimes.blogspot.com/2009/03/idiocracy-hitting-blacks-harder-part-ii.html

The mullahs in the middle east think that it is a good idea to chop off someone's hand for stealing. It does not matter that they know that what the thief has stolen may not be worth a human hand. It does not matter that losing a hand is a permanent alteration. They say that overall, it will cause less theft in society because everyone will be too afraid to steal. And it actually can work in an affluent enough society. Some of those kingdoms have remarkably low theft rates.

Likewise, you seem to think that because preventing the welfare dependent from breeding will overall reduce the amount of unwanted genes from our gene pool, that this is a good idea. The problem is that sterilization is a permanent solution for what may be a temporary state in any given person. And a person does not need to become middle class. They can remain poor, just not on welfare. That is enough for us to say that they aren't really our problem. Someone has to be at the bottom 10% afterall. That's quite inevitable.

There is also the problem that any given person on welfare may have perfectly fine genes. maybe they are only 2% of people, but you can't commit an unnecessary and permanent alteration on a person when they individually may be doing little harm to society.

Things like sterilization as policy will inevitably conflict with any sort of real libertarian leaning. In America, we strive to be just to each individual.

Yawn. I'll just regurgitate what I said in a prior thread. Welfare reform is a piddling little issue compared to Social Security/Medicare reform. THAT is where enormous amounts of money are going, at a rate that keeps increasing with no end in sight. We can ignore welfare reform without any threat to the country's financial future. Not so with Social Security and Medicare.

Focusing on welfare reform while ignoring SS/Medicare reminds me of how people got their panties in a twist over the AIG bonuses. For all their symbolic meaning, the bonuses were less than one-tenth of one percent of AIG's total bailout. Big ducking feal.

excellent post, HS. this is the executive summary that should be thumbtacked to the wall of every cluttered pundit's and academic's office.
not that it will do any good, but the thought cheers me.

As long as lefty "nurturists" are not rebutted by science, too many Americans will view the underclass as reformable.

However, the nurturist argument is going to the the way of flat earth theory as genetic research progresses. HBD will look more attractive to average Americans as genetic research explodes the neuro-Blank Slate view of humanity. At this point we will be able to advocate for HBD centric policies.

I think the best way to kick off the voluntary eugenics movement would be to press for cash payments to criminals and juvenile delinquents to get a vasectomy.

Underclass criminals and juveniles have far less sympathy among the general public, especially with suburban soccer moms. We can argue that sterilizing criminals will make America safer for future generations of women.

Sterilizing criminals also opens the door to other voluntary eugenic programs - such as for welfare dependents and drug addicts - in the future.

I suggest mandatory contraceptive implants for women on welfare. Compared with sterilization, this has the advantage of being reversible. If she stays off welfare for a certain number of months, remove the implant.

Of course, there are many questions that need to be addressed, but I don't have time to go into that now.

Sigma,

You are a bright-guy and a lawyer. I'm sure you realize that your proposal has serious legal problems under our Constitution. Conditioning a benefit on the recipients willingness to give up a fundamental right will certainly be challenged by litigants who refuse sterilization, and I think they have a reasonably high probability of having the law struck down. I'm curious to hear your legal analysis of this issue.

I think its a good idea, but what good is it if it is unconstitutional?

I enjoy your blog as a different perspective, but your penchant to create simplistic strawman characterizations of the "liberal" or "conservative" viewpoints is distressing and I think you need to rethink some of these statements you make (unless, of course, you in fact intend to just make this stuff up to rile people up and get more visitors, which I hope is not case)

Case in point, the statement "The liberals believe that poor people are poor because they lack money. They believe that if you give poor people enough money, then they will magically start behaving like middle class people." is somewhere between a gross mischaracterization and straight out bullshit. No liberal I know, and I know quite a few, thinks this way. I don't think liberals, or conservatives, for that matter fit into your little boxes, and in fact people of any political stripe who have thought about this seriously are much more focused no providing roughly equivalent opportunities for education, employment, etc. rather than pretending that any amount of money/incentives will lead to equivalent outcomes. How to best level the playing field, how much it costs and the best way to do it, are things liberals and conservatives disagree upon, but please lay off the incredibly misleading pop psychology interpretations of "liberal" and "conservative." Most rational people I know believe that some low-income people can in fact, given the opportunity, lead a better life and of course some can't. More importantly, there is great evidence (not anecdotes, actual evidence) that supporting interventions in the education of very young children of low-income parents can make quite dramatic improvements in those children's future earning prospects. Maybe consider reading a bit about this before you make some of these blanket characterizations.

The specification of the problem and possible solutions (although he didn't go as far as you) were outlined and advocated by Edward Banfield in his controversial work "The Unheavenly City" forty years ago.

Bellisaurius:

"Isn't it possible that we require a certain amount of people to occupy those social strata; to do jobs that someone with middle class values wouldn't want to do?"

There is a solution to that problem: robots. 20-minute lecture: http://www.singinst.org/media/singularitysummit2008/marshallbrain

He talks especially about low-IQ workers (Wal-Mart, truck drivers, "Joe the Plumbers" etc). Everything he says seems perfectly feasible. No need for a superhuman AI (well, duh).

More: http://marshallbrain.com/robotic-nation.htm

"The liberals believe that poor people are poor because they lack money. They believe that if you give poor people enough money, then they will magically start behaving like middle class people."

Nobody believes this. Liberals have it about right. We support welfare for those who *cannot* maintain sufficient employment. Of course we don't demand sterilization in exchange, because we aren't barbarians, but that's a different story.

It's conservatives who pretend that the only thing standing between the poor and riches is culture/incentives.

I get a big government subsidy for my mortgage payments (via a tax write-off). This is a form of welfare. Should I be sterilized?

I agree with Peter.

***All things we perceive to be “social problems” have their roots in HBD***

Completely and totally untrue. Haiti is a mess, Trinidad and Tobago is brilliantly run. Both are heavily West African nations (Haiti 95%, T&T 40%-60%, depending on how you count multi-racial). Why is Haiti so bad and T&T so good?

T&T isn't in the hurricane belt and Haiti is, so T&T sustains much more development than Haiti, which is routinely sacked by hurricanes. Haiti has had numerous wars with its neighbor the Dominican Republic. I don't think T&T has ever had a war. Haiti has no natural resources. T&T has huge reserves of petroleum and natural gas, which are well-managed.

If HBD were the sole factor, T&T would be better than Haiti, but certainly not a first-world nation instead of an appalling shithole. Indeed, that's the whole problem with HBD (read: white supremacy), it's heavily tied to recent historical developments. Europe's looked great for 400 years. How did it look in 650 AD? Africa looks shitty, but is it IQ or the fact that the entire continent was carved up by colonial powers, and every country there is basically Yugoslavia? No one actually knows.

Posted by: Law Student | April 02, 2009 at 12:17 PM

What "right" would that be? The "right" to get welfare, the "right" to have kids? I don't recall seeing those in the Constitution. But no doubt the 9th Circuit Court would.

I think that if Siggie used the term "supervised Norplant" instead of sterilization, more would get onboard with his idea. And let's not forget that the best outcome is not fewer children: it's less violent crime.

"How did it look in 650 AD? "

Like Africa in XXXX [insert number between 3000 BC and 2000 AD]

"HBD (read: white supremacy")"
specially when it recognizes that blacks are superior athletes and asians have higher IQ

You are a bright-guy and a lawyer. I'm sure you realize that your proposal has serious legal problems under our Constitution. Conditioning a benefit on the recipients willingness to give up a fundamental right will certainly be challenged by litigants who refuse sterilization, and I think they have a reasonably high probability of having the law struck down. I'm curious to hear your legal analysis of this issue.

I think its a good idea, but what good is it if it is unconstitutional?

Posted by: Law Student | April 02, 2009 at 12:17 PM

Law student: is right to breed codified anywhere?

I doubt it.

I say we take advantage of their present-orientation: offer $20,000 to anyone in the underclass under, say 30, willing to undergo a vasectomy/tubal ligation - provided that they have no more than one kid already.

We'd probably recoup the costs by avoiding the expenses of prenatal care and childbirth alone. Let alone preschool programs, social workers, food stamps, housing assistance and the rest of it.

This is not science fiction -- this is today's news. What we are talking about here are massive, government-controlled welfare dormitories keeping everyone who is unemployed "out of sight".

And you wonder why human biodiversity isn't more prominent. This sounds a lot like Charles Murray's reservations for everybody with low IQ's. I have a better idea, lets just kill everyone with an IQ below 120. This should make society more interesting and let all the "cognitive elitists" bask in their own intellectual superiority.

"Africa looks shitty, but is it IQ or the fact that the entire continent was carved up by colonial powers, and every country there is basically Yugoslavia? No one actually knows."


What colonial power can we blame?

http://www.inewsit.com/video/gallery/Five-people-suspected-to-be-witchcrafts-were-bruterly-murded-in-kisii-Nyamataro-Village

The reason welfare is a hot issue and Social Security / Medicare isn't is because welfare hyper-stimulates lower classes' breeding -- creating an avalanche of problems -- while SS/Medicare is just taking care of old folks.

People are free to have children. However, they should not be free to dump as many kids as they want on the taxpayers.

Brutus & Sleazeball,

I will assume you aren't lawyers; is the right to have an abortion "codified" in the Constitution? The Constitution contains broad language like "due process" & "equal protection," which judges then interpret. Due process has been interpreted to include the right to have and raise children.

Duh! It'd be Constitutional if it were voluntary. If you want to obtain long-term welfare then you have to be sterilised. Thereby the sub-productive don't get to spread their genes to the next generation (hopefully). Obviously those who are a tad dim yet can hold down a decent basic job and have a basic decent standard of living won't be affected. It is only hoped that those who happen to want to get sterilised will not have had children already.

I think the notion of unqualified sterilization for welfare recipients is WAY overboard. I believe it's quite possible for solid people to hit bad times, and for those cases I think welfare is a decent system.

The distinction comes with permanently remaining on welfare. And while I think even then sterilization is a radical idea, I'm starting to think doing nothing, and continuing our current trends, is just about as radical as we can get.

*The only difference between liberals and conservatives is how they think they can reform welfare recipients and make them into model SWPL types. *

Essentially, you've come up to a similar conclusion that I've hinted at here on a few occasions. Both sides are aiming to turn the low IQ (and by default black and Hispanic) populations into white middle class types. For the hardcore, the failure to turn these groups isn't the failure of the low IQ or NAMs, but of white people to solve this problem. In other words, if we can't save them, then our system is broken and is a failure.

*All things we perceive to be “social problems” have their roots in HBD, so if you refuse to acknowledge HBD, then it’s impossible to figure out the correct solution to “social problems.” *

Even if one takes out the racial context of HBD, the problem with it is that it turns into a de facto determinism which strikes at the heart of what some would consider the major trait of America, the belief that anybody can become anything with enough work in effort. I'd argue that HBD basically destroys the idea for average white people that their children are capable of becoming Harvard graduates and Nobel laureates or billionaires, which in the long-term makes the class warfare of the left more palatable, and social-democracy more popular. Once you realize that you're not going to become rich, stealing from the rich is more attractive.

*Why is Haiti so bad and T&T so good?*

Little foreign development, questionable soils, subsistence farming, possibly overpopulation, no mineral resources, little tourism, poorer diaspora, little desire by the upper class to "do anything", NGOs, government, and emigration soaking up anybody with half a brain.

Some mineral resources, tourism, and proper governance would have at least pushed Haiti into the GDP per capita range of Jamaica.

*Haiti has had numerous wars with its neighbor the Dominican Republic.*

IIRC, since the independence of the Dominican state, IIRC, there has never been an incursion or war with the Dominican Republic.

*specially when it recognizes that blacks are superior athletes*

For the vast majority of the black population, this superior athletic ability is useless and makes swimming dangerous.

Mnjohn writes:
"This sounds a lot like Charles Murray's reservations for everybody with low IQ's."

maybe you should actually read through the Bell Curve before you mouth off about it. The New Yorker issued a retraction when Malcom Gladwell accused Murray of advocating that in it's pages:

"CORRECTION: In his December 17th piece, "None of the Above," Malcolm Gladwell states that Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray, in their 1994 book "The Bell Curve," proposed that Americans with low I.Q.s be "sequestered in a ‘high-tech’ version of an Indian reservation." In fact, Herrnstein and Murray deplored the prospect of such "custodialism" and recommended that steps be taken to avert it. We regret the error."
http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2007/12/17/071217crbo_books_gladwell?currentPage=4

*There's no inherent reason a person with an 80 - 100 IQ can't support themselves and even a family!*

In theory, it's doable, but we'd have to pay "inflated" wages to these workers, and I suspect that the rest of us are unwilling to pay such wages. In other words, Wal-Mart would have to pay an average of $15/hr to its labour and provide healthcare.

* If the challenge is showing up on time to a laboring job, then that's entirely possible.*

If the low IQ were simply a fractional proportion of each race based on the Bell Curve where each race has an average of 100-105, there wouldn't be much to worry about. The problem is that low IQ is basically a "negro" problem, and eventually, you'll have complaints that there are few or no black people in high ranking, white collar positions, and black people are all lumped in the bottom. Those people tend to become angry, bitter, and spiteful, and they tend to turn into so-called black nationalists and sometimes riot instigators. Some black people may be bought off with high paying blue collar work where they're essentially left alone, but there are some who want to be "white", but aren't able to.

*sterilization as a requirement for collecting welfare*

The de facto alternative is to simply state that no additional welfare is given women who have additional children while on welfare. An interesting step would be the introduction of minimum work credits for welfare. In other words, one would need to work for a certain period before qualifying for welfare which would have the effect of preventing teenage pregnancy by young women who use children as a tool to move out of their homes.

"The Constitution contains broad language like "due process" & "equal protection," which judges then interpret. Due process has been interpreted to include the right to have and raise children."

The Congress could simply revoke the federal court system's jurisdiction over welfare for sterilization cases under Article III Section 2 of the Constitution.

"Posted by: Law Student | April 02, 2009 at 09:22 PM"

Also, early in the 20th century when social Darwinism was in vogue courts ruled that involuntary sterilization was consitutional.

If involuntary sterilization was ruled constitutional based on scientific evidence then it is possible for voluntary sterilization to come back since the constitution hasn't been written in a way that would preclude voluntary or involuntary sterlization. The courts are simply interpreting the constitution differently.

If public opinion shifts enough, courts tend to find ways to shift with it over the longrun. The prerequisite to voluntary eugenics is going to be shifting public opinion.

Why do all people who oppose this sterilization theory argue with emotion? "It's not fair!" Reality isn't fair. Some people want us to babysit them. I don't want to be a part of that, because once we begin supporting neurotic people, they take over and dumb everything down.

Liberals and conservatives alike all know this, they just have different ways of trying to get it through.

Contraceptive implants (Norplant in the arm or IUDs) is politically feasible in some states.

Even better, in every state conpletely free contraception and ad campaigns that encourage their use would be feasible if conservatives were in support. Liberals already are.

Low future time orientation means a lot of people would use contraception but don't when, for whatever reason, it is not on hand.

The comments to this entry are closed.