Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
“Cancel Culture” is Intellectual Eugenics
A hundred years ago, American progressives were big into eugenics, in an effort to purify the gene pool by selectively killing off and preventing the breeding of people they thought of as undesirables. To the early 20th century progressive, this included blacks, criminals, and those with disabilities.
Today, American progressives are big on silencing dissent, in an effort to purify the intellectual space by squelching ideas and opinions — and sometimes data — that they think might lead people into “wrong thinking.” To the modern progressive, this includes any idea that is contrary to up-to-date progressive ideology: a lot of things that were completely anodyne and almost universally believed as recently as the year 2000 would now be forbidden by the left’s benevolently censorious mobs.
Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, was wrong when she thought it was a good idea to abort lots and lots of black babies in order to “improve” the gene pool. But when you think that you’re on the side of the angels, it’s easy to think that you’re justified in doing whatever you like, whether it’s purifying the race or silencing critics or burning down police stations or shouting down a speaker with whom you disagree.
[ Correction: It has been pointed out to me that Margaret Sanger, though a eugenicist and a racist, was not pro-abortion. She preferred to prevent those she deemed “undesirable” from breeding, but was opposed to the destruction of the unborn. I think she would be horrified to discover what the organization she founded is doing in her name today. ]
Probably. But I almost never take Henry seriously.
Seriously? Well, the joke’s on me, then. :)
Progressive Person: “Look, I KNOW I’m right, so I’m actually doing you a FAVOR by not wasting your time by explaining how right I am to you. You can take my word for it, and we can then move on to how we modify your behavior and your thoughts. Win-win.”
Yes. And also, there is an enormous favoring of authority. Science informs the hoi polloi, who mustn’t be led astray by the uncredentialed who question the data. Best we silence the quacks, cranks, and skeptics.
I am cancelling this author. And I will dox him too. Perhaps I will even make him famous by such noble actions?
I just saw this and haven’t read any of the comments.
Eugenics was to support the good genes and eliminate the “bad” ones.
Cancel culture is done to eliminate the good ideas that work and prop up the bad ideas that don’t work. It is the opposite of eugenics.
I disagree.
BOTH eugenics and cancel culture seek to make the world better. Their goals are noble.
Both are, of course, evil. They rely on evil and rotten foundations about the purpose and meaning of mankind in this world.
Not disagreeing.
I like this interaction because the argument over how one values policies that are well intentioned but may not work (we aren’t sure) strikes me as an important dimension in political debates. I don’t like eugenics… but, to push on the issue, what if someone says “hey we know a lot more about genes now?” Brain surgery has changed a lot right? Is there a reason why eugenics can’t make similar change?
Relatedly, and why I like the post/reply. I wonder: If one believes that outcomes are extremely variable there may be a reason to believe intentions should be given higher weight in the decision making process. On the other hand if one believes that we generally know what policy treatments do, it makes sense to give less weight to intentions. It’s a difficult moral intuition since draining intentions from actors also instrumentalizes people in ways that may not be socially healthy.
We are not there, yet. There is not only genetics, but also epigenetics and environmental factors. A “bad” gene in one environment can be selected for in another environment. Sickle-cell anemia is selected for in malarial areas. It is not in cold northern climes. God or nature or whatever you wish to call it has created a very complex system that works well for adapting us around the world. We don’t know even half of what is going on yet, and had better keep very, very humble about what little we know and investigations going forward.
While I understand your point, I’d suggest that you’re making the same error of hubris as were the eugenicists — and as are the modern progressives.Progressives always believe that they’re amplifying the good and expunging the bad. Sometimes they’re right. But, even when they’re right, they can’t be allowed to decide who gets to reproduce, who gets to speak, who gets to be born, who gets to believe which ideas. It’s the mechanism, not the goal, that is the problem. It’s the belief that anyone should ever be empowered to decide which individuals and ideas deserve to see the light of day.
[ Edited. Arahant, I don’t actually think you’re making the same mistake — believing that you can unerringly pick good genes and good ideas. That’s the hubris part, and I know you know better; I wrote too quickly. And perhaps, if one could do that, just maybe the eugenicists of genes and ideas could be defended. I don’t know. But one can’t. ]
The reason why eugenics is evil is that is presupposes that one person can – or even should – have the power to terminate or nullify someone else’s very lifebreath.
Eugenics is not irrational: we breed animals for desirable traits, after all. Understanding that eugenics is evil requires one to accept that seeing people as animals is itself unacceptable.
Which is why I am a libertarian: I don’t want to give other people power over me, and I do not want that power over others, either. I am pro-choice in the most fundamental sense: I want people to have the freedom to make their own mistakes, and deal with the resulting consequences.
Keep reading.
I went back and edited my comment before I saw this.
Here’s why I accused you of hubris. You were drawing a distinction between the eugenicists and the modern cancel culture people, observing that the former were removing the bad, while the latter are removing the good.
I happen to agree (with the exception of the racial component of eugenics), but that’s a transient observation about the old eugenicists and the current cancelers. The evil of eugenics is not in which people it chose to eliminate, but in its willingness to eliminate people. The evil of cancel culture isn’t in which ideas it chooses to eliminate, but in its willingness to eliminate ideas.
I was being pedantic, rejecting a trivial distinction when, pace your observation that the two are opposites, they are in fact conceptually identical.
I’m adding this to my list of quotes.
I understand why you would think so, but my point was something different. In eugenics, they were trying to eliminate certain genes, but they really didn’t know enough as to whether each was good or bad. They thought the targets were bad, but there was not enough information either way. Their methods were evil, but their goals might have fallen either direction.
With cancel culture, the methods are also evil. But the difference is that there is plenty of evidence throughout history of the efficacy of the ideas on both sides. They are trying to eliminate the good ideas that have brought prosperity and freedom of choice in so many areas, ideas that create more wealth. (Of course, they have a zero-sum economic model which makes them believe wealth cannot be created, only stolen. Thus, they don’t believe free enterprise and free markets work.)
They then support ideas that have never worked. They have consistently brought poverty and misery. Everything they say they are for, their ideas lead to the opposite every time they are tried.
That is the difference. Both are bad ideas. Both are implemented through evil means. But one is well-intentioned hubris, while the other is either full-on ignorance or evil in intent.
Thank you both.
Sounds right to me. I like the idea of staying humble and purposefully taking stock of the “unknowns,” especially when people’s lives are on the line and when we are claiming to want to shape a gene pool (strikes me as unduly arrogant given our current knowledge). I like that approach.
I was partly worried about my example because I thought the pro-life/pro-choice part would come into play. But I guess that matters as well because it is true that certain priors can make things verboten. And that is part of the whole cancel culture debate. Sometimes our priors take most of the weight and we don’t really want to hear more.
I’m not criticizing you or your response btw. It makes a lot of sense. I don’t know if it would be interesting to ask how it would change if abortion were not part of the equation. What if they say “abortion was a blunt tool back then but now we can just edit your genes.” I only know a little bit about the subject of gene editing so I hope it doesn’t sound too sci-fi because that wouldn’t be worth going into. That said, I think we’d all want to knock out a gene/series of genes that predict types of cancer. But what happens if that gets into behavioral traits (use your imagination). What if it gets into “kinky hair”? I bring it up because I’d like to know if there are any areas where your answer might change.
Your post is bang-on, so I hate to be “that person,” but I’ve mostly made my peace with being a compulsive correcter, so here goes. My understanding is that Sanger was not a proponent of abortion. That was an innovation introduced by her acolytes at PP. She thought she could accomplish her eugenics goals with birth control.
Thank you. You’re right, and I wasn’t aware that Sanger in fact was a vocal opponent of abortion, arguing that birth control was the moral alternative. I’d like to represent her fairly; I’ll edit the post accordingly.
There is also a quotation often ascribed to Sanger that I’ve never been able to verify as accurate, and that, given Ms. Sanger’s general tone, I suspect is a misattribution. This is the reference to black people as “human weeds.” It’s a horrible comment, but one I suspect she never made.
I have no problem with messing with nature: I believe that nature is flawed and G-d put us here in part to correct it!
So I have no issue with editing genes, as long as people are aware that there are no free lunches; everything has unexpected consequences.
Similarly I have no problem with people getting plastic or other cosmetic surgery. It may not be my choice, but I want others to have the freedom to make their own choices.
I think a critical distinction between eugenics and plain old medical treatment is that eugenics is an attempt to improve the race, whereas medical treatment is an attempt to improve an individual — whatever benefit the race might derive from that is secondary to the goal of improving one individual’s life.
For the eugenicist, the individual is something to be manipulated (or destroyed) in pursuit of a larger good.
Here’s the thing about the natural system: environments change. We do not know what mutation might be beneficial in a different environment. There is a type of moth that has light and dark color versions. For most of the existence of this moth, the light version has predominated. But during the industrial revolution, the dark predominated. Why? The environment changed. Everything was covered with soot, and the light-colored moths stuck out and were easy prey. We started cleaning the environment up and burning cleaner fuels and using electricity rather than wood and coal to heat homes. That changed the environment again. The light-colored moths predominate again. The moth species as a whole has survived those three environmental periods because they had the genes in their overall genome to produce both color patterns.
We do not know how the environment for humans will change and what mutation might prove to be what allows humanity to survive through the change. We are best off keeping all the mutations we can, just in case. Mutations, if they are not immediately lethal, often have both benefits and drawbacks. I mentioned sickle-cell anemia before. Carriers of that gene are pretty much proof to malaria. Having one copy of the gene (being a carrier) is not so bad. It is only for those with copies from both mother and father who really suffer the effects of the disease. But either way, it’s better than catching malaria. Malaria is an environmental pathogen.
There may be mutations out there that make people proof from CoViD-19. Now, maybe that mutation happens to make the person shorter than average or makes them have a big nose or makes them unable to digest gluten. Mutations and genotypes have trade-offs. We really do not know enough to avoid throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Amen!
Everything good will be twisted to an evil purpose. Look at how good nuclear fission, GMO crops, and plastic surgery was supposed to be, and how much harm it has caused.
It’s dysgenics.
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2020/06/cancel_culture__what_happens_when_everything_gets_cancelled.html
Gone with the Wind, a multi-Academy Award winning classic movie was cancelled from HBO due to “racial insensitivity.” Several Netflix shows were cancelled due to an Australian comedian’s use of blackface. Yet Northam and Trudeau haven’t been cancelled out of government.
Pelosi may want to cancel U.S. Capitol statues but is she willing to cancel her own father? While mayor of Baltimore, Nancy’s father dedicated monuments to Confederate generals Stonewall Jackson and Robert E Lee. Mayor Thomas D’Alesandro had it right at the time, saying the memorials, “Stand like a stone wall against aggression in any form that would seek to destroy the liberty of the world.” In other words, a reminder to remember history, lest it repeat itself. The apple fell far from the tree in the Pelosi family.
Colleges and universities are next. Most of the Ivy League schools have ties to American slavery, even if centuries ago. Now the only slaves are those students taking out six-figure loans for worthless degrees in gender studies or intersectionality, leaving college as slaves to loan companies. Elihu Yale, founder of Yale University, was a slave trader. Will Yale change its name to George Floyd University? Or how about Al Sharpton U?
Cancel the police and it will be the Hunger Games in American cities. Truckers have already promised to not deliver to cities that defund police. Minneapolis can grow its own food in winter when the temperatures are below zero. Good luck with that.