Arvind Sujeeth

Hemenway

+CPS – 4

take home happy quiz?

Dysgenics: Genetic Deterioration in Modern Populations by Richard Lynn, reviewed by Marian Van Court, rests on a foundation of two largely false premises: 1) the intelligence and health of a population rests solely on its genes and 2) social Darwinism is acceptable. Herbert Spencer declares the response by first redefining perfectibility, and second, by questioning the ethics of civility; “The believe in human perfectibility merely amounts to the belief, that in virtue of this process, man will eventually become completely suited to his mode of life (12)…whoever thinks that a thoroughly-civilized community could be formed out of men qualified to wage war with the pre-existing occupants of the earth-that is, whoever thinks that men might behave sympathetically to their fellows, whilst behaving unsympathetically to inferior creatures, will discover his error on looking at the facts” (19).

Professor Lynn appears, on the surface, to present a logical case; Van Court, while attempting to support and praise Lynn’s case, instead ironically tears it to shreds. Van Court insists that the scientific evidence of dysgenics - populations deteriorating genetically through the introduction of contraceptives and less intelligent people having a greater number of children – is more concrete than the “pseudoscience” of Marxists and Nihilists. What he fails to consider, however, is the fact that Marxism is based completely on an economic – scientific – view of worldly patterns; that also, genetics is a new, largely unstable field complete with contradictory scientific evidence and insecurities; that ultimately, evolution has existed through millennia in periods of short, extreme change interspersed between long periods of relative stability – it is not the gradual process dysgenics appears to be. Spencer brings this into context by discussing not evolution, as is largely beyond our control, but instead societal perfection when discussing growing population: “So that, whether the dangers to existence be of the kind produced by excess of fertility, or of any other kind, it is clear, that by the ceaseless exercise of the faculties needed to contend with them, and by the death of all men who fail to contend with them successfully, there is ensured a constant progress towards a higher degree of skill, intelligence, and self-regulation-a better coordination of actions-a more complete life” (36). Spencer is essentially arguing that the very existence of such a problem spurs a natural solution; Van Court and Lynn argue that the existence of such a problem demands a solution. Furthermore, by classifying dysgenics as a racial problem of deterioration rather than a societal deterioration, Van Court ignores criticizing the institutions of society in favor of criticizing the individuals of society. Uneducated is not necessarily unintelligent - a fact that has lost itself on Van Court; Spencer said “man exhibits just the same adaptability…that such changes are towards fitness for surrounding circumstances no one can question” (9). Van Court demands that Lynn’s evidence for de-evolution are inherent to the idea of natural selection – yet he forgets that natural selection in and of itself demands adaptation, and that all things are in a constant state of flux.

Despite having obscured the facts to make a case for cutting off the excess baggage of humanity, as it were, Van Court again fails to address the ethical concerns that must come from such a view. Social Darwinism cannot be said to be a trait of a civilized society. Man, ideally, is continuously progressing towards achieving his highest biological function, whatever that may be – to completely fit its mode of life. By demanding natural selection above all else, we contradict that mode of life, which cannot exist without preservation of life. It is absolutely unethical, and Van Court agrees: “No one would deny sufferers treatment.” Their survival, contrary to Van Court and Professor Lynn, are not a danger to the survival or progress to the rest of the species – we continue, above all else, despite all else, to naturally adapt and progress. Van Court stresses, several times, that we must not fear the shadows of the holocaust and German genocide when preaching eugenics – yet how can we not? It is utter irreverence to the sanctity of human life to suggest that it is a worthy, or easily dismissible, sacrifice.

Professor Lynn’s treatise on dysgenics falls because it operates on the foundation of two falsehoods. Marian Van Court not-so-cleverly pointed out the holes in Lynn’s argument by attacking other views while ironically ignoring dysgenics’ own pseudoscience and irrationality. Human beings are the single most complex creatures on the planet; to suggest that our race is nothing but numbers in a gene pool would be a gross oversimplification that insults our own potential and function.