« Teach a man to fish and he steals your rod ... | Gene Expression Front Page | Real Roots »
August 04, 2003

There are no utopias

Steve Sailer cautions against utopian thinking by pundits who wish the whole "Race Problem" would just go away....

Posted by razib at 04:46 PM




Was I the only person surprised to see Steve Sailer, normally a big supporter of interracial marriage as a (partial) solution to the race problem in America, point out what a total failure it has been in Brazil? Perhaps Sailer's usual support for interracial marriage is merely "politically correct squid ink" similar to Cavalli-Sforza's insistence that race does not exist.

Posted by: Oleg at August 4, 2003 08:09 PM


steve can speak for himself-but i suspect that difference in capital between group A & B in terms of "the g factor" might mean that interracial offspring will not serve as a panacea. on the other hand, if "the g factor" is comparable (east asians & europeans), it might be more of a solution since there won't be assortive mating that causes a linkage disequilibrium.

Posted by: razib at August 4, 2003 08:51 PM


One wonders what motivates typical "utopianism". I don't believe that utopianists are necessarily well-intended. I think that they often harbour dark feelings. It would be better if they worked through their own pyschological problems before setting about to reform the world. Many of the methods proposed (and employed) by utopianists conflict with conventional notions of justice. Stealing from someone to alleviate the poverty of someone else is an example. The road to hell is paved with good intentions so we hear, but are they really good intentions? These so called good intentions are sometimes accompanied by greed and malice, and often a great deal of self-importance. The utopianist must defy conventional morality on a daily basis paving his road.

Of course anyone with an opinion on how things should be could be accused of utopianism. Where should the line be drawn? Well I think that people should strive to alleviate the suffering of other sentient beings (as well as our own). But we can do that while ackowledging that all that matters is that we try because the real reward is our own sefl-transormation. Transforming the world isn't the real goal.

Posted by: Sporon at August 4, 2003 08:53 PM


Was I the only person surprised to see Steve Sailer, normally a big supporter of interracial marriage as a (partial) solution to the race problem in America, point out what a total failure it has been in Brazil? Perhaps Sailer's usual support for interracial marriage is merely "politically correct squid ink" similar to Cavalli-Sforza's insistence that race does not exist.

I think Sailer has often pointed out that interracial marriage has not helped the situation that much in most Latin American countries. His belief in the positive effects of interracial marriage on race relations seems pretty mild. He also acknowleges the relative rarity of interracial marriage in the U.S.

If you are saying that interracial marriage is no panacea to our race problems, I agree with you perfectly. Its rarity alone (do you even see all those leftist "race does not exist" people marrying interracially?) makes it an unrealistic solution to anything.

That being said, I have no problem with interracial marriage, and I don't see any conflict between interracial marriage and a belief in race realism.* I see no reason to believe that Sailer's pro-interracial marriage views are contrived.

*I'll admit I'm a bit biased on this issue, since I generally prefer East Asian women over white women.

Posted by: Matt W. at August 4, 2003 10:15 PM


Even with increasing interracial marriage, I don't think such a colour-caste system ala. Brazil will ever come about in the US. As long as dark Asian Indians continue prosper, then fair skin won't necessarily be associated with privelege. And where exactly would yellow East Asians fit into this colour spectrum?

Posted by: Sen at August 5, 2003 07:38 AM


Gc: " Interracial marriage is fine so long as the people intermarrying are intelligent enough. "

People get married for all sorts of reasons (family ties (endogamy), dowry, social standing, "love", pragmatism, etc) but I doubt any man has ever married a woman for her intelligence, or viceversa.
Women marry sucessful men, and only a minority of those would be highly intelligent in an intellectual sense.


As for intermarriage between european nationalities, it is not an issue because generally the offspring look "general European" and so fit in well.
Not to mention the commonality of culture, customs and religion.

You rightly point out that it doesn´t take stratospheric IQs to maintain the current level of western polity and technology. It only takes decent citizens, stable institutions and the rule of law. It may not seem much, but in my view those are the main requirements, and they lack everywhere except in the West.
I believe, however, that Western Society is on the brink of collapse because those foundations are threatened by PC, Multiculturalism and leftism.


Posted by: eufrenio at August 5, 2003 06:20 PM


"People get married for all sorts of reasons (family ties (endogamy), dowry, social standing, "love", pragmatism, etc) but I doubt any man has ever married a woman for her intelligence, or viceversa."

*Any* man? Well, I will tell you that *this* man (meaning myself) will not marry a women unless she has strong intellectual tendencies. Perhaps *you* would be quite content to marry a woman who concerns herself with little other than interior decorating, cooking, television and child care, but I would find that to be a pretty boring relationship.

"I believe, however, that Western Society is on the brink of collapse because those foundations are threatened by PC, Multiculturalism and leftism."

Pure alarmism.

Posted by: Chris W at August 5, 2003 11:52 PM


Chris,

In the book The House of Mirth, by Edith Wharton, the protagonist Lily had an opportunity to marry this super rich guy Percy, but she couldn't stand him because he was so stupid.

Posted by: Gordon Gekko at August 6, 2003 01:41 PM


Gc: " I'm only saying that "race-mixing" is neutral for a society's technological level if the people being mixed are of high enough intelligence to maintain the society. "

My contention is that I view the intelligence factor as negligible. You don´t need geniuses to run a society, whether at the top or at the bottom. Highly intelligent individuals only serve as a "boost" for scientific/ social breakthroughs, from time to time. And I do not believe they can be bred like cattle. I figure that in a large enough population there´s a chance 1 in 100 citizens can grow up to be very bright, given the right conditions. It is not uncommon for outstanding individuals to be produced in a fairly undistinguished family!

It looks like race-mixing is probably neutral in bringing about better intellects.And I believe the West can absorb no more than 3 or 4 % non-european minorities, but above that there´s a good chance you´ll either get conflicts and absence of assimilation, or plain ethnolysis.

I have to agree that Singapore, Japan and S. Korea are exceptions. You are right, Godless, but still the world at large does not look very promising.


Posted by: eufrenio at August 6, 2003 02:57 PM


Eufrenio,

I don't know that it contributes much to the discussion, but 1 in 100 citizens will certainly be in the 99th percentile with respect to intelligence. That would be true even if humans had all the intelligence of porcupines.

I think the United States can assimilate any number of any culture when they enter at a slow enough rate. That is when the US values assimilation, of course, and rejects multiculturalism.

Posted by: Bob Badour at August 6, 2003 05:26 PM