Bill Bennett, Freakonomics, & Aborting Black Babies. - Page 2

VarlosZ · #11 10-02-2005, 02:39 AM

First Bennett's comment, then the eugenics issue the OP discussed.

For context, the relevant part of the transcript from Bennett's show:
[ QUOTE ]
"CALLER: I noticed the national media, you know, they talk a lot about the loss of revenue, or the inability of the government to fund Social Security, and I was curious, and I've read articles in recent months here, that the abortions that have happened since Roe v. Wade, the lost revenue from the people who have been aborted in the last 30-something years, could fund Social Security as we know it today. And the media just doesn't -- never touches this at all.

BENNETT: Assuming they're all productive citizens?

CALLER: Assuming that they are. Even if only a portion of them were, it would be an enormous amount of revenue.

BENNETT: Maybe, maybe, but we don't know what the costs would be, too. I think as -- abortion disproportionately occur among single women? No.

CALLER: I don't know the exact statistics, but quite a bit are, yeah.

BENNETT: All right, well, I mean, I just don't know. I would not argue for the pro-life position based on this, because you don't know. I mean, it cuts both -- you know, one of the arguments in this book Freakonomics that they make is that the declining crime rate, you know, they deal with this hypothesis, that one of the reasons crime is down is that abortion is up. Well --

CALLER: Well, I don't think that statistic is accurate.

BENNETT: Well, I don't think it is either, I don't think it is either, because first of all, there is just too much that you don't know. But 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 ]

And from Bennett's remarks on the issue the next day:
[ QUOTE ]
"I was pointing out that abortion shouldn't be opposed for economic reasons any more than racism should be supported or opposed for economic reasons. Immoral policies are wrong. And they're wrong because they're wrong, not because of an economic calculus."

[/ QUOTE ]

He did not say anything racist. He referenced the correlative relationship between race and crime as an example, in passing, to make an unrelated point. One could infer that he was suggesting that there was causal relationship between the two, but I understand that he is on record in his books as saying that there is no such relationship (i.e., that crime and poverty are causally related, while crime and race are only incidentally related).

While I see no problem with his statement per se, the liklihood of its being taken out of context and/or misinterpreted is such that he should not have said it on the radio. He's guilty of being careless and perhaps a bit insensitive, but no more.

VarlosZ · #12 10-02-2005, 03:14 AM

[ 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 · #13 10-02-2005, 06:47 AM

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.

sammysusar · #14 10-02-2005, 09:55 AM

How can you say his statement is correct. If the crime rate was say 10% among a group and they make up 15% of the population while the rest of society had a crime rate of 5% you would lower the crime rate by eliminating that group.
So yeah, what he is saying is likely correct. Even if you assume a slightly lower crime rate in the next generation.
I suppose things are true can be offensive to say, but since he prefaced it by saying it was an extremely terrible idea i dont see why he cant say it.

VarlosZ · #15 10-02-2005, 10:38 AM

[ 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.

Malachii · #16 10-02-2005, 03:08 PM

I believe Bill Bennet is correct. There is considerable statistical evidence to prove that blacks have a higher crime rate than whites, latinos, or asians. Is it probable that these statistics have more to do with their economic status than the color of their skin? Of course. But it is also statistically justifiable to say that if we aborted every black child in America, we would have a lower crime rate. Frankly, I don't understand what the big deal is... it would be like saying if we aborted every Jew in America, our national average on SAT scores would suffer, which I'm sure is also statistically justifiable.

He went on to say that it would be morally reprehensible to ever do such a thing, and he's right about that also. Frankly, I don't understand why he created so much controversy by saying this, although I understand that because of Katrina the media is looking to play the race card wherever possible.

sexdrugsmoney · #17 10-04-2005, 02:40 PM

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)

<blockquote>En respuesta a:<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.

<blockquote>En respuesta a:<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.

<blockquote>En respuesta a:<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)

<blockquote>En respuesta a:<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)

<blockquote>En respuesta a:<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.

<blockquote>En respuesta a:<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

DougShrapnel · #18 10-04-2005, 03:40 PM

"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 definitely wrote several responses to this that I didn't think where up to snuff. But I'll give some of my thoughts.

Bennett said nothing wrong, although when I first heard him say it, I was shocked. But mainly because he didn't think about the ways what he said could be taken. But that's a whole 'nother post that I didn't want to get into to much.

Also I didn't want to get to much into China policies.

But what I do want to get into is the proper benefactor of ethics. When we use society as the reason for ethics, we can arrive at some faulty conclusions. Imagine a doctor who has 6 patients, 5 have a fatal malfunction of some sort. The 6th is perfectly healthy and can be used to save the life of the 5 others. If we use society as the basics of ethics we arrive at a very simple conclusion. But this hasn't yet touched on breading rights.

God has also chimed in on this "Go forth and multiple". But it's also incorrect to have God as the benefactor of ethics. If someone doesn't want to have children, that should be their choice.

It is the individual that is the recipient of ethics. It is not the world that gets the benefits of ethics. It is persons and not people. Individuals are the only ones with rights. So what are this rights that individuals have. An individual can be broken up into her past, her present, and her future.

Ones past is identified as ones property and wealth. Birth rights aren't a part of ones past. Ones future is their life and we aren't talking murder here,

It is only when we look at ones present to we begin to discuss the problem. What more can we say about ones rights in the present, other than that one should be free. We do make restrictions on ones freedoms, one is free to do anything provided it does not interfere with the rights of individuals. The right of life, liberty, and property. Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness is close and sounds a heck of a lot better.

This science of ethics prevents the doctor. It prevents someone from limiting individual’s birth rights.

But it doesn't address what to do with those who don't obey this type of logic (as in ethical treatment of criminals). It doesn't address the question of when birth rights conflict with availability of resources (as in China).
It doesn't address the damage that ignorant people do (people who can not provide for their children, but exercise their birth rights anyway).

Here is where my post falls further apart.

Jim T · #19 10-04-2005, 04:42 PM

[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, you aren't talking about some newfangled "privacy right", you are talking about liberty. You know, one of the "inalienable" rights that was being talked about at the country's founding (the irony of legal slaveholding notwithstanding).

You are discussing how "logical" it may be to deprive a huge percentage of their basic liberties, because they don't perform well enough on a test well enough to suit you. Let's also not forget that no one can agree on exactly what said test should be measuring or what weights should be assigned to different aspects.

BTW, serial killers are generally much more intelligent that the general population.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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?

[/ QUOTE ]

When limiting the means themselves is the most important end, then yes, the results of your "logic" would certainly speak for themselves.

sexdrugsmoney · #20 10-05-2005, 06:44 AM

<blockquote>En respuesta a:<hr />
<blockquote>En respuesta a:<hr />
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, you aren't talking about some newfangled "privacy right", you are talking about liberty. You know, one of the "inalienable" rights that was being talked about at the country's founding (the irony of legal slaveholding notwithstanding).

[/ QUOTE ]

Stop assuming the only society worth discussing is the US.

<blockquote>En respuesta a:<hr />

You are discussing how "logical" it may be to deprive a huge percentage of their basic liberties, because they don't perform well enough on a test well enough to suit you. Let's also not forget that no one can agree on exactly what said test should be measuring or what weights should be assigned to different aspects.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's say for example, purely to narrow further discussion down, that persons IQ 120+ can breed.

<blockquote>En respuesta a:<hr />

BTW, serial killers are generally much more intelligent that the general population.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah but their parents who did most of the psychological damage to them, what was their IQ's?

<blockquote>En respuesta a:<hr />
<blockquote>En respuesta a:<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?

[/ QUOTE ]

When limiting the means themselves is the most important end, then yes, the results of your "logic" would certainly speak for themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]

And that would be a lower crime rate and an increased probability in the further advancement of humanity right?