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]

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.

[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.

[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

[VarlosZ]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

There have been studies that show that kind of negative correlation between education and birth-rate, bot not (ar far as I know) between intelligence and birth-rate. There is very likely an IQ correlation as well, but I'd wager that there would be a far stronger correlation between birth-rate and one's socio-economic class at birth.

Anyway, I have two main problems with what you're talking about.


1) Surely you would agree that restricting breeding rights is an extraordinary invasion of privacy. As we have a simple utilitarian interest in protecting such privacy, it would take an extraordinary counter-interest to justify such a thing. So:

-- Are you really so confident that we can measure "intelligence" accurately enough to deny breeding rights to those below a certain threshold on a certain test?

-- Are you confident that a more intelligent populace would be a safer, more righteous, more content populace? How can we say with any confidence what that populace would be like? True sociopaths, for example, are disproportianately intelligent.

-- Might there not be certain desirable traits in people that do not correlate with intelligence, or which even have a negative correlation? How would these be assessed, measured, and taken into consideration?


2)[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

How would a more intelligent populace eliminate menial, low-paying jobs? It seems the only difference would be that the janitor is now better equipped to understand how much his job sucks.

If you believe that intelligence correlates with ambition, initiative, or righteousness: cite?


In other words: how would this make the world better in such a way that the ends would justify the (monstrous, IMO) means?

[lautzutao]

Bennett could have said that we should abort all white children to lower crime yes? Why did he choose black? Happenstance? No, because people that listen to Bennetts show and Bennett himself feel that blacks are more responsible for crime than other races. Sounds like racism to me.

[VarlosZ]

[ QUOTE ]
Bennett could have said that we should abort all white children to lower crime yes? Why did he choose black? Happenstance?

[/ QUOTE ]

He could have (and should have) said all poor children, as that would have been more accurate and less controversial. Since he was talking about crime rate, and not absolute numbers, saying that aborting all white children would lower crime wouldn't make much sense.

Why did he say black people? We have no way of knowing. Chances are it was just the first generally understandable example that popped into his head. Was it the first thing to pop into his head because he's a racist and that's how he thinks? We have no way of knowing, but that's certainly not the only explanation, so it behooves us not to assume the worst just because we don't like the man's politics.

[ QUOTE ]
No, because people that listen to Bennetts show and Bennett himself feel that blacks are more responsible for crime than other races. Sounds like racism to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Afro-Americans do, in fact, have a disproportiantately large crime rate (cites upon request). That statement comes with many caveats, but it's still a fact. The relationship between race and crime appears to be correlative, not causal. Conventional crime-statistics probably over-represent blacks and other minorities, since those stats measure convictions, and minorities who commit crime are more likely to be arrested and convicted than white people who commit crime. Etc, etc. Still, the correlation is there.

[sexdrugsmoney]

First of all, thanks for being one of the few to discuss this issue. I was a little surprised by the lack of responses from most of the people who debate about logic and religion. I only hope SMP isn't merely a battleground for the continual struggle of atheists vs theists, but for all 2+2ers to think about many big issues. (but sadly the lack of attentiton to this thread and the issue of the logic of eugenics may seem to indicate otherwise)

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
I have two main problems with what you're talking about.

1) Surely you would agree that restricting breeding rights is an extraordinary invasion of privacy. As we have a simple utilitarian interest in protecting such privacy, it would take an extraordinary counter-interest to justify such a thing. So:

-- Are you really so confident that we can measure "intelligence" accurately enough to deny breeding rights to those below a certain threshold on a certain test?

[/ QUOTE ]

The privacy is issue seems very emotional and personal. In the premodern era households didn't really have privacy like households do today. When society changes many things change with it, privacy and rights are just two of those things always subjected to the 'social contract' of one's day, a contract that they didn't sign at birth but was thrust upon them by their parents.

1) I'm not "confident" in these matters as I haven't researched this issue enough. (though after posting this thread I did watch Gattaca and have plans to read Huxley's Brave New World) Though Darwin's cousin was a believer in Eugenics, I'm not sure if Eugenics is what I am talking about per se. (though IQ breeding does play a big part in Eugenics it also addresses 'engineering' also, which seems logical)

It would seem though, from what we know now regarding medical issues, nobel prize winners and other intelligent folk, that a high IQ is preferable to a lower IQ, and that a 'perfect' body is preferable to one that is subject to various vices (alcoholism, substance abuse, etc) and diseases/conditions (hereditary diseases and a range of medical conditions - mental and physical)

With that said, it would seem logical given the current technology to use 'controlled breeding', and if that was done to possibly restrict it to those with at least average if not above average IQ's to reduce the crime rate of a society.

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

-- Are you confident that a more intelligent populace would be a safer, more righteous, more content populace? How can we say with any confidence what that populace would be like? True sociopaths, for example, are disproportianately intelligent.

[/ QUOTE ]

Looking at what we know know, sociopaths aside, most crime is a result of the actions of the non-genius. I think a Utopia where there is peace and total harmony is naive, and pockets of crime as long as humans have emotion will occur, but on a whole the crime rate should fall sharply.

I'm not confident a Utopia will be achieved (as this is naive to expect) but I am confident many women would be confident that their chances of being raped have fallen considerably, as would the convenience store owner that his chances of robbery have also fallen.

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

-- Might there not be certain desirable traits in people that do not correlate with intelligence, or which even have a negative correlation? How would these be assessed, measured, and taken into consideration?

[/ QUOTE ]

Outside of artistic ability what other desireable traits could there be that couldn't be 'genetically assisted' and/or replaced by technology? (after all, we rely currently on technology for many things - ie brute strength/machines)

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

2) How would a more intelligent populace eliminate menial, low-paying jobs? It seems the only difference would be that the janitor is now better equipped to understand how much his job sucks.

[/ QUOTE ]

Some menial jobs in time will eventually be replaced by robots once the technology is perfected. (ie- self-vaccuming robots with sensor capability to navigate around a room are currently available)

If Eugenics was introduced one would assume the 'lowest' class of people would be of average intelligence and thus be the janitors, garbage men, shopkeepers etc.

Considering many people in these jobs have average IQ's (some higher - some lower depending on job) and are content with their life and happy to do the 9-5 and have their own life afterwards, I don't see the problem.

If however the 'benchmark' was say 120+ then there might be more chance of this, but if depression can be controlled via breeding one has to ask how an intelligent person in a menial job who recognises they can do better would feel and cope daily? (one of the many questions regarding this subject)

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

If you believe that intelligence correlates with ambition, initiative, or righteousness: cite?

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no sources. Currently this discussion is the 'birth' if you will, of my journey to reading and thinking more about Eugenics.

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

In other words: how would this make the world better in such a way that the ends would justify the (monstrous, IMO) means?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the results would speak for themselves.

Do you not think it's logical though?

Cheers,
SDM