The Tall and the Short of It: Ah, Those Exceptional Humans
This is a great picture published in the UK's Daily Mail memorializing a meeting between the world's tallest and shortest men. It's a hoot. And it got me to thinking about the wonderful diversity of our species.
Bao Xishun is 7 ft. 9 in., while Pingping is 2 ft. 4 in. Because we generally don't measure moral value by stature (at least, not any more), I doubt whether anyone would dispute that both Misters Xixhun and Pingping are equally human beings possessed of equal moral worth. Would that all humans--regardless of their "attributes or capacities" were so perceived.
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 8:27 AM
19 Comments
19 Comments:
China does not believe in the equal moral worth of all humans...
http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/000773.html
The Chinese military has released a report saying much the same thing. See also here, or google for the translation of the remarks by "Sun Dong-Sheng".
Sun Dong-sheng of the Jinan Army Institute remarked: "The requirements of modern science, technology, and production, and the speed with which their development has taken place, have resulted in increasing demands for a population with attributes of a high quality." To meet these demands for human beings of a "high quality", Sun, as well as many of his likeminded contemporaries, recommended that the "field of eugenics," with the science of "genetics as its basis," can be "established on an objective, materialistic foundation" and can thus be employed by the state for the purposes of "socialist modernization."
In the same article, John Derbyshire remarks:
You do have to make an effort to remember, reading this piece, that communist China is a nation whose government has not scrupled to involve itself in its citizens' most intimate family affairs, that it has imposed a draconian policy of compulsory family planning -- including forced abortions -- and that when Dr. Sun talks about "more regulations concerning the ways by which the idea of healthier offspring can be given reality," he means yet more state intrusion into people's decisions about who to marry, and whether or not to have children.
A rough kind of eugenics has, in fact, been practiced in China for a long time. Several years ago, when I was living in that country, I mentioned Down's Syndrome in conversation with a Chinese colleague. She did not know the English term and I did not know the Chinese, so we had to look it up in a dictionary. "Oh," she said when she got it. "That's not a problem in China. They don't get out of the delivery room."
As I said: While we are agonizing over the rights and wrongs of it, elsewhere they will just be doing it.
My post wasn't about China, whose policies I have frequently eviscerated here at SHS. Besides, the two gentlemen are Mongolian.
I think we need to treat China about its eugenics policies as we did S. Africa about Apartheid. We won't though, due to the $$$$.
What exactly is your point here? Humans are exceptional because we have such genetic diversity?
I look at that picture and the genetic diversity of humans is analogous to dogs - say a chihauhau next to a Great Dane.
It seems pretty self explanatory to me, Royale. It was a minor post about equal moral worth. Here you have two humans who appear as different as two humans can possibly be on the outside. Yet, we do--and should--treat them equally. One is not less human than the other or less entitled to equal worth. The same should hold true of other "differences" among humanity, such as disability, health, cognitive capacities, etc.
Well, there are some forms of human biodiversity which is inimical to the welfare of humanity. For example: http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2006/02/world-of-difference-richard-lynn-maps.php
The entry is titled "A World of Difference."
Here's one quote that such differences brood hatred and ethnic conflict.
In World on Fire Amy Chua describes the relationship between economic status and "Indian-blood" throughout Latin America: "Latin American society is fundamentally pigmentocratic: characterized by a social spectrum with taller, lighter-skinned, European-blooded elites at one end; shorter, darker, Indian-blooded masses at the other end . . ." (p 57). As an example she describes her experience in Mexico:
"Almost without exception the Mexican officials, lawyers, and business executives we dealt with were light-skinned and foreign educated, with elegant European names. Meanwhile, the people doing the photocopying and cleaning the floors were all shorter, darker, and plainly more "Indian- blooded." While considerable social fluidity exists in Mexico, it is also true that lightness of skin correlates directly and glaringly with increasing wealth and social status. (p 59)"
The trends Chua observes within Latin American countries also appear to operate between these countries, with countries with mostly European populations, like Chile and Uruguay, being the most economically developed and countries with largely Amerindian populations, such as Bolivia and Ecuador being the least economically developed. Coblogger emeritus Godless Capitalist once compared 12 South American countries and found a correlation of .96 between GDP-per-capita and percentage of the population that is white.
Lynn's data confirms this general picture with intelligence as well. Both with between country differences (e.g. Uruguay (96) and Chile (99) score like European countries, while Ecuador's IQ scores range within the 80s), and within country differences; to use Chua's Mexico as an example, last year Lynn tested a representative sample of 920 in Mexico with the Standard Progressive Matrices and found that whites had an IQ of 98, Mestizo (mixed race) 94, and Native Indians 83 - all compatible with Chua's observations of a "spectrum" of "social status" by amount of "Indian-blood".
HRK: Hating others because of differences is anti-human exceptionalism. Moreover, racism isn't justified under any circumstances and will not be tolerated at this blog.
Fair enough, but I wasn't endorsing racism; I was just quoting from the Gene Expression blog.
I hope certain transhumanist technologies will unite humanity and reinforce human solidarity.
HKR: That's an interesting point. The ideal of transhumanism, as I understand it, is wild diversity, to the point that there might not even be a basis (from my perspective) for society--which at least at some level requires some commonality.
I do think that transhumanism in practice would actually lead to less diversity. And, in fact, could lead to a stultifying of society.
Be that as it may, my gripe is with the belief that more intelligence equals better humans. I reject that notion.
Thanks for writing.
I do think differences in intelligence lead to social stratification. There are several papers and books that discuss this (most notably the work of Linda Gottfredson and The Bell Curve). I perceive such social stratification as the antithesis of social justice and human solidarity. Social stratification often has rather invidious consequences such as class conflict as is the case Tsardom of Russia. This is one of the reasons why I find it compelling to pursue equality of outcome (in contrast to equality of opportunity).
I meant to say "Russian Empire".
I hope this isn't too off-topic, but I had a post on a different group blog in which I participate in which I discussed the phenomenon of girls who have a poor self-image and engage in various self-destructive behaviors as a result. I said that I thought some of this resulted from their being made to believe they were ugly by unkind comments from their peers. One reader came out of nowhere and began saying that, indeed, poor physical self-image among girls could cause such a thing, that it was obviously unfair and part of the cruel world we live in, and that the solution was...
all parents with daughters who were merely "average looking" or worse should get their daughters plastic surgery.
Yep, that was his idea. That, he said, would make the girls "alphas" and would improve their self-images.
I was pretty flabbergasted and told him this was pernicious nonsense. Somehow, I don't think he was convinced. But it was pretty horrible--the idea that you wouldn't want your daughter to be merely _average-looking_. It reminds me, in a darkly humorous way, of Prairie Home Companion and the description of the town where "all the children are above average."
Very on point, Lydia, since transhumanism has been raised and our need to view each of us as morally equal regardless of our individual capacities or achievements. Among the well off, there is already forming something of an enhanced beauty arms race. It is decadent, when you think about it. We have become so successful, that we have the time and money to worry about minor blemishes that in past times would have caused not a raised eyebrow.
I think transhumanism is similarly decadent. It moans over natural capacities and pouts that human life as we evolved/were created (take your pick) is just lacking and so our science needs to focus on making us a little smarter, prettier, healthier, stronger, more athletic, or able to look like a cat. Meanwhile, in Africa people go hungry and kids die of measles. But hey, eventually we will all be able to upload ourselves into computers and live forever.
Ah yes, maybe women should stop wearing make-up. After all, cosmetic science is obsessing about making us look pretty while people die in Africa.
But look, Royale, I hope you're a sensible enough person that you don't subscribe to the idea that if your daughter is not better-looking than average (however one would decide that) you should get her plastic surgery. At least makeup is a temporary and non-invasive measure. And I would also hope that conservatives, liberals, and libertarians could all agree that we shd. be teaching our daughters to value themselves for more important and enduring qualities than whether or not they are "alphas" in terms of their looks, and ultimately that we should value our children based on their intrinsic human worth rather than trying to make them all "above average" in physical appearance. Right?
Exactly Lydia: The sophistic argument is often made: Well, we give our kids good schools or force them to take piano lessons, which is no different than genetically engineering them for greater intelligence or musical talent.
This discussion is similar, albeit there are also important differences since the changes would not pass down the generations, with the contrast between giving your daughter make up lessons to help her look her best, and paying a surgeon to change her looks, put foreign objects in her breasts, or suck out fat--any of which could (rarely) kill her, and which would permanently (or semi-permanently) alter her flesh.
You do not understand the motivations and reasons for transhumanist intelligence enhancement: it's about upheaval against an unjust social system. In addition, it is about freedom; we would not be mired by our innate limitations to pursue our own goals.
Cognitive ability limits one's career options; see this figure, http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/34/Two_Curve_Bell_with_Jobs.jpg/420px-
Do you have another suggestion for eliminating social statification and global inequality?
HKR: No, I understand it all too well. It is deeply solipsistic. It is quasi-religion with its own prophets, eschatology, and infidels to be defeated (the dreaded bioLuddites).
Moreover, there is nothing in natural human life that prevents us from improving social conditions and promoting equality. Nor is there anything in transhumanism that would necessarily do so.
Yes. My suggestion is to continue on with the agenda in the West of the last several hundred years and that is to base equal worth on mere humanity, not capacities. Indeed, rejecting human exceptionalism and equal moral worth takes us in precisely the wrong direction.
"No, I understand it all too well. It is deeply solipsistic. It is quasi-religion with its own prophets, eschatology, and infidels to be defeated (the dreaded bioLuddites)."
Well, these two links are rather apropos:
http://www.fightaging.org/archives/000897.php
"Fortunately, neither Smith nor Mohler are in any great position of power, the better to ensure you suffer, decay and die on their schedule. The advance of science and technology will rapidly render their views irrelevant, given freedom of research. Unfortunately, many people in positions of power share their views, and denial can be turned to suppression. In this world of expansive, intrusive government, in which tens of thousands of lives can be lost through uncaring socialization of medicine it is all to easy to envisage a far worse future.
By all means laugh at the foolishness and cruelty of those who advocate your death and suffering, or seek to use the power of the state to enforce suppression and relinquishment of healthy life extension research. But point out their true nature wherever they occur; we don't want to see a future in which these people are taken seriously."
Here's an interesting comment on that entry:
"I think these guys are twisted. Not only do they oppose efforts to understand and eliminate the aging process. The also oppose any ability of individuals to choose the means of their own death when they get old. They are against both extended healthy life as well as suicide. One can only conclude that they have some sick obsession with making people suffer for no reason at all.
This is twisted and sick, as far as I'm concerned."
and
http://www.fightaging.org/archives/000717.php
The man or woman, whichever, is entitled to an opinion, but at least as to me, it is utter nonsense, of course. I don't oppose ethical medical research into the cure and amelioration of diseases. I don't oppose ethical research that would help us live longer and healthier.
I certainly do oppose the values of Aubrey de Gray who is so obsessed with his research into anti-aging that I heard him say at a conference it is more important than increasing access to health care for the poor in Africa.
www.wesleyjsmith.com/blog/2006/06/catman-cometh.html
My primary gripe with transhumanism is not that people might want to make themselves look like a cat or desperately try to save themselves from death through futuristic manipulations, that might someday add a few years but never reach the desired near-immortality--it is that it presumes the right to "seize control of human evolution," actually try to intelligently design us through genetic manipulation of progeny. And it is explicitly eugenic.
Transhumanists keep saying they can't be stopped and then get mad at those who point out the futility of the overall project. Sad really.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home