Thursday, November 15, 2007

Peter Singer Supports Research Into the Inate Intelligence of Black People

Have we not at long last had enough of investigations seeking to find rational bases for perceived racial differences among us? Now, Peter Singer--while rejecting racism--supports doing research into the genetics of Africans to see whether they measure up to other populations on the intelligence scale; which could fuel the very evil he claims to reject. After recounting the recent James Watson imbroglio, Singer writes:

[A] genuinely difficult question remains: should scientists investigate the possibility of a link between race and intelligence? Is the question too sensitive for science to explore? Is the danger of misuse of the results of such research too great?

The dangers are obvious enough. Racist stereotyping harms the prospects of many non-whites, especially those of African descent. The concepts of intelligence and of race are less clear-cut than we often assume them to be. Scientists need to handle them carefully if they are to pose meaningful questions about the point at which these two concepts intersect...

Yet to say that we should not carry out research in this area is equivalent to saying that we should reject open-minded investigation of the causes of inequalities in income, education, and health between people of different racial or ethnic groups. When faced with such major social problems, a preference for ignorance over knowledge is difficult to defend.

What garbage! Intelligence isn't the same thing as, say, finding the cause for disease that might disproportionately strike people of African ancestry. There is nothing to be gained by doing genetics research into whether African people somehow have a slightly lower level of intelligence to other human populations. Moreover, the entire premise is racist because it lumps people into invidiously defined groups. It strongly implies that greater intelligence somehow equals being a better or more worthwhile human being--even if people are not supposed to think less of those impugned as being less intelligent. And what would he suggest if some difference are found? Genetic engineering of black folk to make them smarter? Ridiculous.

I am not surprised by Singer's views: He rejects the premise that human beings have equal worth simply and merely because they are human. If there is a "rational" basis for finding some humans to have greater value than others, he would grab it.

But what we don't need are "scientific" reasons to see each other as different. Rather, than looking for purported group characteristics--that would be irrelevant to individuals anyway--we need to promote universal equal rights and equal dignity for all humans without reference to capacities, abilities, or talents.

Labels:

10 Comments:

At November 15, 2007 , Blogger T E Fine said...

Why the hell do people get in such a huff over "race" anyway? He has more color pigment in his skin than I do - he must be the devil! (scoff scoff scoff)

I always thought having people be so different from each other was more interesting than everybody being just alike.

 
At November 15, 2007 , Blogger Aki_Izayoi said...

I support the scientific investigation of these differences; however, I do not believe the findings should be promulugated as it could foment more hatred. I am sure it would provide fodder for all the people who post at Stormfront.

Hey, what is wrong with genetically engineering black folk to be more intelligent? We should also do the same for everyone too. I also believe that we should do it to non-human animals.

I will quote this again from Citizen Cyborg:


The anti-racist implications of germinal choice technology have also given racists a pause. In a thread on the neo-Nazi Stormfront Web site titled "Is Transhumanism Good for White Nationalists?"
one post notes:

What's wrong with this form of egalitarianism? After all, if everyone is genetically engineered with superior intelligence, blacks, whites, yellows, and all, then the would would be a much better place. The problem with egalitarianism today is that people are trying to make equal that which is simply not equal. But if everyone were truly equal, there would be no need to make everyone equal, and therefore no need for egalitarianism.

But another poster objects:

I have some real concern about the ability of the White race to use these technologies wisely in the present situation. Eugenics in recent decades has largely meant going to a sperm bank to have the child of a Jewish medical student.


"Reflecting on Lee Silver's naive, and now frequently quoted, prediction that germinal choice will lead to a division between the genetic haves and have-nots. Adam Wolfson retorted in the Public Interest that "if genetic enhancement were to become possible, democratic publics would take to the streets with guns and knives before allow Silver's scenario to come to pass. The lower and middle classes insist that their children be provided with the same eugenic enhancements available to the children of the rich. In time, The U.S. government would subsidize eugenic programs, not to create an overclass but to preserve equality, to elevate everyone's natural endowments." The point of this book is to argue for precisely such a movement, a movement that progressives will be forced to embrace once they have exhausted the dead-end of bioLuddism."

pg. 183

Hughes says widespread, so it has to be universally available.

 
At November 15, 2007 , Blogger Wesley J. Smith said...

HKR: You always support my points, whether you meant to or not. But it makes no sense to do the research and quash it.

How are you going to uplift tends of billions of animals? Get real, man. Not to mention, billions of people.

Is Citizen Cyborg your Bible? Good grief.

 
At November 16, 2007 , Blogger Unknown said...

One of the world's largest most consistently successful and stable industries - INSURANCE - profits by discriminating against group members based on group statistics, e.g. auto insurance for under-age 25, life isurance for smokers, etc. People accept this. When you don't have the resources to checkout all the group members, discrimination against groups with bad statistics, including racism, makes sense...

 
At November 16, 2007 , Blogger Jay Watts said...

Measuring inherent intellectual ability is a tricky thing on an individual. How on earth could you ever be confident enough in your models to verify and publish that an entire race is by nature intellectually inferior to any other race? The idea itself seems fraught with complication that is impossible to reliably overcome. Only arrogance or hubris would lead a group to set out to study something like this to begin with. I disagree that it is a fear of a politically incorrect subjects that leads us not to study the varying intelligence of race groups. It seems like a sensible understanding of the limitations of scientific study to me.

 
At November 16, 2007 , Blogger LifeEthics.org said...

A couple of years ago, a Black doctor gave a talk on cultural competency to a workshop at our American Academy of Family Physicians' National Conference of Special Constituency.

(That's the Conference held in conjunction with the Annual Leadership Forum, a sort of ghetto for the New Physicians, Minority, Foreign Medical Graduates, Women and GLBT -Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual/Transgendered - Some add a second "T" for Transexual. I get a headache, thinking about the NCSC, although I've served as a Woman for Texas, twice. The NCSC sends resolutions straight to the Congress of Delegates, so they wield a lot of power.)

Anyway, one of the interesting parts of the talk was the discussion of genetic testing for racial background. He had a lot of pigment, but he found out that quite a bit of his genetic background was Northern European.

Race debates among "bioethicists" are just so much smoke and mirrors, another way to distract us from the real debate about which human beings are human-enough to be protected from the elite who will kill the "not human enough non-persons."

 
At November 17, 2007 , Blogger T E Fine said...

"Race debates among "bioethicists" are just so much smoke and mirrors, another way to distract us from the real debate about which human beings are human-enough to be protected from the elite who will kill the 'not human enough non-persons.'"

Every time someone "proves" one race is superior to another, or one gender, someone turns around and shatters that "proof." Women score lower on IQ tests than men - and yet the only person to get a perfect score on an IQ test is a woman, Marylin Vos Savant. "Black" people are supposedly intellectually inferior - and yet some of the most acclaimed artists in the world are dark complected, and some of the most beautiful artwork comes directly from Africa.

People just want an excuse to hate other people. Some folks feel like they should be privlaged and other people aren't worthy of them. Pshaw.

 
At November 18, 2007 , Blogger Mike Matteson said...

I have mixed feelings on this. I don't like the idea of limiting research, but this research isn't likely to go anywhere at all. Races are too large and too diverse to give any sort of good data.

The "perfect IQ" score woman's last name is Savant? Really? Wow. I'm changing my last name to Savant-Billionaire for my kid's sake!

 
At November 18, 2007 , Blogger Wesley J. Smith said...

Well said, Matteson. Research should have a point and a purpose. It should also be ethical and moral. Tesing Africans to see if they have lower intelligence fails on all points.

 
At November 18, 2007 , Blogger T E Fine said...

"The "perfect IQ" score woman's last name is Savant? Really? Wow. I'm changing my last name to Savant-Billionaire for my kid's sake!"

Marilyn vos Savant - her mother's maiden name was vos Savant, and she took her mother's maiden name as her surname. Completely legitimate. It's kind of trendy for women to keep their mother's maiden names now, and pass them down to their daughters, and have their sons take her husband's surname.

 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home