Biological Egalitarianism
Bruce Lahn and Lanny Ebenstein write (pdf) in Nature: “Let’s celebrate human genetic diversity.” (Hat tip: Steve Sailer.)
The current moral position is a sort of ‘biological egalitarianism’. This dominant position emerged in recent decades largely to correct grave historical injustices, including genocide, that were committed with the support of pseudo scientific understandings of group diversity. The racial-hygiene theory promoted by German geneticists Fritz Lenz, Imbler Fischer and others during the Nazi era is one notorious example of such pseudoscience. Biological egalitarianism is the view that no or almost no meaningful genetically based biological differences exist among human groups, with the exception of a few superficial traits such as skin colour. Proponents of this view seem to hope that, by promoting biological sameness, discrimination against groups or individuals will become groundless.
We believe that this position, although well intentioned, is illogical and even dangerous, as it implies that if significant group diversity were established, discrimination might thereby be justified. We reject this position.
Agreed. I have made this same argument with regard to debates over higher education, although I prefer the terminology “genetic egalitarianism” since it better captures the fundamental assumption that genetics don’t matter.
In somewhat related news, the mainstream media continues to deny the realities of human genetic diversity. Britain’s Channel 4 is airing a documentary on race and intelligence, and Channel 4′s diversity czar makes clear that the documentaries purpose is to debunk any link between the 2. Apparently it is going to feature interviews with Lynn and Rushton. Why they are partaking in an obvious hit-piece is beyond me. It amuses me that the article calls the documentary “controversial” for regurgitating the socially acceptable opinion.
Don’t expect much celebration of our differences anytime soon.
The thing is that by introducing people to Lynn, or Rushton people will be more likely to at least consider their arguments. This is preferable to them simply being ignored or suppressed.
With the internet it is far more difficult also to stop people from doing their own research & drawing independent conclusions.
The show should be interesting none the less, thanks for the link B.B. Reminds me of a PBS documentary a while back as well.
Full text of Lahn piece online.
http://www.talkrational.org/showthread.php?t=18862
my impression is that things are shifting somewhere upstairs:
the opinion making elites policy-makers etc., must realize that the science can’t be suppressed forever, and are trying to prepare public opinion – albeit incrementally – for the paradigm shift re human biodiversity.
This will be couched along the lines of:
“we all have different strengths and weaknesses, but in the end, these balance out, so we’re still all equal after all.”
Some of these attempts to square the cirle will be silly and even incoherent, but as long as things are moving in the right direction, who cares?
If I were in charge of managing the paradigm shift for mass consumption, I would do the same.
There is no inner party.
Interesting discussion developing in the nature forum. Ebenstein responds to a criticism they have misrepresented the current position:
“Sergio D. J. Pena says the article ?seriously misrepresents the current situation of research in human genetic diversity.? I don?t believe this is the case. Good evidence exists to support the following views:
1) there is more genetic diversity at individual and group levels than thought a few years ago,
2) some of this diversity is functional,
3) human evolution, rather than having stopped in the past 50,000 to 40,000 years, may have increased.
In addition to footnote 5, see footnote 2, with respect to global variation in copy number in the human genome, and footnote 6 for signals of recent positive selection in a worldwide sample of human populations, among other articles.
http://network.nature.com/groups/naturenewsandopinion/forum/topics/5623#