Bill Bennett, Freakonomics, & Aborting Black Babies.

[sexdrugsmoney]

US Radio host Bill Bennett recently created a controversy by saying that the US could reduce it's crime rate by aborting every black baby, citing the social sciences book Freakonomics, where the declining crime rate is apparently linked with a rise in abortions.

The abortion/crime issue was discussed briefly in this thread, and the book Freakonomics was again mentioned. Although I haven't read the book (though I should) I'd assume the authors are talking purely in socio-economics and that unlike Bennett, do make the statement to abort every black baby in the country.

Bennett's comment, which he claims was taken out of context, has cost him his radio show IIRC, and has spawned outrage and criticism with many people saying "why did he say this?" in what seems like emotionally charged politically correct programmed 'kneejerk' responses to a statement which comes across with much generality. (it ignores black people like David Williams who are well educated and avoid the criminal lifestyle)

The whole issue arose by a caller arguing that if all the babies in the past 30 years who were aborted were alive, their tax revenue would have assisted the Government in funding Social Security, to which Bennett made the reply that the caller was assuming "the aborted" would have been productive citizens.

This is Bennett's comment in context:

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />

I do know that it's true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could -- if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down. That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down. So these far-out, these far-reaching, extensive extrapolations are, I think, tricky

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously Bennett addresses:

- The impossibility of such an act. (both practically and legally)
- The ridiculousness of such an act. (treating 'Bourgeois Black Babies' as 'collateral damage')
&amp;
- The moral implications of such an act. (the humanity of the situation similar to Hitler's "solution" to the "Jewish problem")

I believe Bill Bennett is talking about children born into low socioeconomic environments (The "Barrios", Ghettos, Trailer Parks etc.) and that he has picked black people based on the statistics of black males (in particular) to crime and incarceration compared to other races such as Latinos and Whites. (and to a lesser extent Asians and Indians)

Ofcourse, I'm not going to assume Bennett secretly believes Black people are predisposed to crime more than these other races, though that is what many critics seem to believe he is trying to say.


So what does SMP have to do with this?

SMP is one of the rare places that morality can be removed for a moment to address the pure logic of the situation, and the hope is that members can treat each subject objectively.

Although in practice, we can never do this all the time as our biases and emotions manifest themselves in each of our posts to varying degrees, it is always the 'dream' that we can detach ourselves emotionally from an issue when assessing it and it's implications.

An issue I've wanted to see discussed in SMP for a while is the logic of humanity restricting breeding to certain people, who would be of at least a standard IQ (preferably above average) and naturally would not be exposed to a low socioeconomic environment.

This is a big issue, and instantly morals come into play. Everybody believes it their right to breed, yet is that logical?

We all know of China's "one child policy", where if a family has no more than one child many things like medical and education are subsidised by the Government, but having more than one child voids any subsidisation.

China's "one child policy" seems logical, if we contrast this to problems in Africa, it seems illogical (and selfish IMHO) for anyone to breed in some environments when self sustenance is a problem.

So I don't know really how to start this discussion as it is huge and I'm hoping everyone in SMP will participate, with that I throw it open to you for discussion.

Cheers,
SDM

Bennett's comments can be seen and heard here

[sammysusar]

It does not sound like Bennett was trying to be racist here. He probably just should have added the caveat that is was all based on prior trends and you cant necessarily predict the future from the past or just said if one race was predisposed to violence, (should not have mentioned blacks - or maybe made the comment based on class.
Based on how Bennet seems to have made the comment based on what a caller said about how those aborted would have been productive citizens, it just seems he is talking in a theoretical sense and there should be no political offense taken.
Had Bennett initiated the comment without context it might be slightly offensive, but i can see how the context does not make it a completely wrong thing to say.

[Jeff V]

[ QUOTE ]
This is a big issue, and instantly morals come into play. Everybody believes it their right to breed, yet is that logical?

[/ QUOTE ]

Human if not logical.

The one child law would efinately not go over well in America. Though it is interesting that the people that need govt assistance most usually have the most children. That in and of itself is irresponsible.

While I don't really like stereotypes- they did start somewhere.

[Jeff V]

But he was well aware of the arena in which he made the comments. I'm sure he's also aware of our sue-happy,take it out of context,how could he say such a thing?, that's an outrage something must be done culture.

[Girchuck]

You are aware that the population of many European countries is decreasing, right?
How did they achieve this decrease without any restrictive "one child" policy? (by the way, China population keeps growing, only the rate of growth is decreased)
The answer is: universal acceptance and easy availability of all forms of birth control, and least restrictive sexual mores. Liberate the women from "be fruitful and multiply" mentality, and you won't need to do anything else to get population growth under control.

[sexdrugsmoney]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
You are aware that the population of many European countries is decreasing, right?
How did they achieve this decrease without any restrictive "one child" policy? (by the way, China population keeps growing, only the rate of growth is decreased)
The answer is: universal acceptance and easy availability of all forms of birth control, and least restrictive sexual mores. Liberate the women from "be fruitful and multiply" mentality, and you won't need to do anything else to get population growth under control.

[/ QUOTE ]

Population growth isn't the issue, the issue is the quality and attention a child recieves, especially if it's an only child compared to a larger family.

Europe's declining birthrate IIRC has more to do with the 'selfishness' of adults (their right) who don't want to burden their lives by adding children (though they can afford to in many cases) than it has to do with making a moral choice to abstain from having a family because of lack of opportunities. (like an African in Ethiopia making the decision not to bring children into the world based on knowledge of the type of life the child will face)

You say China's "one child policy" isn't necessary as enlightening the women of the 'non-need to multiply' is sufficient, but I would argue this isn't enough.

I'm on shaky ground here as I haven't researched the following line, but I would wager the higher IQ; less breeding, and the lower the IQ; the more breeding - when if anything it should be the opposite way around. (the upper class who can afford more children, therefore can have them wheras the lower class who can't therefore shouldn't)

Unfortunately due to human nature, having a significant other and producing children seems 'hard wired' into us, and while over the years some religions (such as Islam and Catholicism) may have directed their adherants to have big families I think people don't necessarily need the blessing of the pope or Allah to do what is instinctive.

So therefore if I'm right about the lower IQ = more children, then it's more likely that the lower IQ corresponds to a menial job and a lower class, and in some cases full-time wellfare.

I don't need to tell anybody how this increases the probability of an increase in crime, especially when the statistics show the sons of single mothers are the most likely to have a run in with the law. (figure I heard was 70% of them, though I can't recall if the research was restricted to low-socioeconomic areas)

So even though you could make birth control and this information available to the people, it's doubtful they will have the restraint to make the hard decision to not breed, there's just too much internal (instinctive) and external (peers, religion, entertainment) programming to overcome, especially for the poorer persons IMHO.

-SDM

[lautzutao]

His argument would have been valid had he suggested aborting the fetuses of lower income families. Instead he implicitly stated that blacks are the cause of crime, and by aborting all blacks the crime rate would decrease.

I believe freakanomics stated this fact as well. Abortion among lower income households was the "reason" for the crime rate dropping, not just among blacks.

I'm not much for being PC, but Bennetts statement was ignorant and incorrect.

[ QUOTE ]

I'm not much for being PC, but Bennetts statement was ignorant and incorrect.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since you are not much for beeing PC you could also add that it was intolerant, biased, elitist and racist.

[pokerjoker]

I am going to change Bill Bennetts arguement from Black to Dumb and poor. Not because they are synonyms for eachother but I think in his head he was equating the two. Since due to their lower status in society a greater percentage of blacks than other races are dumb and poor.

Even if we aborted every baby not made from two geniuses there would still have to be someone to take out or process the geniuses garbage or fix the geniuses toilets when they got deeply clogged (until some genius invents a robot to do it). Unless we become communist (I will leave it to someone else if you want to debate why this is a bad idea) these geniuses will not be making as much as the geniuses performing brain surgery. They will get pissed off and do things against the more affluent society or eachother.

Aborting every dumb or poor (white or black) baby would do little to solve antisocial behavior.

PS what if all geniuses took turns doing the tasks that sucked and took turns performing the brain surgeries during the day. Assuming they dont spend their whole preadulthood lives smoking pot and playing videogames I think everyone would be somewhat equally qualified to do some sort of intelligent job and everyone could be making around, though not exactly, the same ammount of income. Utopia time?

[Jim T]

I'm not particularly interested in the controversy over Bennet's remarks, but I did think this was worth discussing:

[ QUOTE ]
"An issue I've wanted to see discussed in SMP for a while is the logic of humanity restricting breeding to certain people, who would be of at least a standard IQ (preferably above average) and naturally would not be exposed to a low socioeconomic environment.

This is a big issue, and instantly morals come into play. Everybody believes it their right to breed, yet is that logical?

We all know of China's "one child policy", where if a family has no more than one child many things like medical and education are subsidised by the Government, but having more than one child voids any subsidisation.

China's "one child policy" seems logical, if we contrast this to problems in Africa, it seems illogical (and selfish IMHO) for anyone to breed in some environments when self sustenance is a problem."

[/ QUOTE ]

1. In discussing the system of allowing anyone to have children, you do realize that what you seem to believe is the "logical" solution would result in tyrany, don't you?

I'm happy with "illogical" freedom, thank you very much.

2. Someone later in the thread mentioned that China's population is still growing, but that is only short term. If the CIA estimate is correct, then China is WELL below a replacement fertility rate and will relatively soon begin a population decline. And when you consider that the children who ARE being born in China are overwhelmingly male (because female fetuses are aborted at much higher rates), the picture there is even worse.

China is already on the path to a dangerous increase in their median age:

[ QUOTE ]
Some Chinese scholars have warned that in 15 or 20 years' time, China will face an ageing population problem similar to that encountered by several developed countries, but without the welfare resources to meet the challenge.

But Arthur Kroeber, managing editor of the China Economic Quarterly, isn't so sure.

"Demographic projections are very perilous because we don't know what tomorrow's birth rate is going to be," he said.

"But basically it does seem clear right now that China is in the midst of a demographic boom where there's a bulge of young people and that bulge is going to get older and older, and in 15 or 20 years' time we are likely to have a much older population with a much higher percentage of people in retirement and a lower percentage of people supporting them."

[/ QUOTE ]

BBC

These demographic timebombs are serious enough in Japan, Europe and, to a lesser extent, here in the US. We have the wealth to cushion the shocks somewhat. However, China is still a comparatively poor nation.