Hi Tom, I'm not sure that I agree with your
Quote:
|
. . initial statement on this issue: we can not yet discuss this topic objectively.
|
At least in the sense that these things hardly ever get discussed objectively anyplace, I think we have as good a chance as anyone else. I also disagree with your underlying premise which seems to be that incontrovertible objective evidence has to exist before an objective discussion can take place. Objectivity only requires honest motives and no
hidden agendas. I don't mind agendas as long as we're up front about them.
Here's mine. I am revolted by the idea of a world where someone's genes (translated as skin color, gender, perhaps IQ, etc.) could prevent them from receiveing fair and equal treatment or an equitable shot at happiness in the society they are born into. You know, those rights guaranteed to us by the US Constitution.
I don't have trouble discussing sex or racial differences in mental abilities or intelligence. But the facts on the ground are that conservatives are making two cases. One, is that those purported differences are incontrovertible and immutable. There is ample evidence to disagree with, if not disprove, both of those. An honest, objective discussion can be valuable to at least show that our current cultural
re-embrace of eugenics is not nearly as science-driven as the RW think tanks and Steve Sailer (and JimB) would have us believe.
Their second case is that those differences justify some fairly radical conclusions regarding how we treat each other in the world. I mean, if so many people in this world really are genetically inferior - then you really can't expect the gifted classes to share
their resources and their healthy, comfortable life-styles with the dumb ones, can you. How fair is that?
Rushton's quote that JimB posted to start this thread was quite revealing:
Quote:
|
These findings in Lynn's latest book have profound geopolitical significance. They imply it may simply not be possible to transmit Western-style democratic and economic systems to the populations of Latin America and Moslem North Africa and the Middle East, let alone sub-Saharan Africa. They mean that the world's long-term problems will stem from its populations' capabilities - much deeper and more intractable than any "Clash of Civilizations" - style competition between different political concepts.
|
But, even better evidence of where they are going with all this IQ stuff comes from
The Bell Curve where the authors propose that (based on these
easily understood, incontrovertible and immutable differences) the time has come for our society (the USA) to now organize itself to segregate the less mentally astute from the more capable - perhaps in
special communities. From page 526,
Quote:
|
In short, by custodial care, we have in mind a high-tech and more lavish version of the Indian reservation for some substantial minority of the nation's population, while the rest of America tries to go about its business.
|
I suspect that widespread resistance and even revolt will require that they become even more pragmatic in their approach, however. There are several million of us who have average (IQ 100) or even above who are apparently not intelligent enough to appreciate the economic wonders of Enron-style capitalism or who don't take a suitably homophobic version of Jay-sus as our savior or who fail to see the profound wisdom of a
God and smart-bombs-fueled Republican foreign policy and are labelled as enemy combatants - and so I think those
special communities may end up with a broader mix by IQ.
This discussion is not really one that I'm willing to postpone while we wait for conclusive evidence on IQ. The inconclusive, shaky and disingenuous evidence is already being put to conservative ideological ends by way of the cable-bigots who reach millions every day. I don't see Rush asking for better evidence, do you?
Objectively, Margaret