One more on dysgenics

In the last post I addressed dysgenics as presented by Edward Dutton in his most recent book, Witches, Feminism, and the Fall of the West. He argued that reduced evolutionary selection pressures since the late 1800s has weakened average cognitive ability, resulting in lower fitness individuals who push for self-destructive societal beliefs and behaviors. I found no evidence for the central claim that intelligence has been in decline since the Industrial Revolution, and dismissed his argument. Here I will try to address a more reasonable framing of the dysgenics hypothesis. I am learning as I go from a fairly naïve position, so please let me know if my ideas have already been debunked elsewhere, or discussed in greater detail previously.

My investigation of Dutton was in response to a VoegelinView article and Orthosphere follow-up essay by Dr. Richard Cocks, both of which treated Dutton's ideas as scientifically credible. Despite my difference of opinion, Dr. Cocks was very kind in an email response to my post. He wishes I would have addressed 2 additional points (summarizing in my words): 1) dysgenic selection pressures due to lower IQ women having higher fertility, and 2) anti-natalist philosophies driving lower fertility for high IQ women. In other words, doesn't there have to be a dysgenic effect pulling down on cognitive ability over time?

Let me state this version of dysgenic fertility as follows:

1. Intelligence is 60-80% heritable.
2. There is a negative correlation of about -0.2 between a woman's IQ and her fertility going back to 1900, which would predict an average IQ decline of 0.8 points per generation. (1, 2)
3. Since there has actually been an average increase of about 10 points per generation (the Flynn effect), we don’t see an overall decline in IQ; rather the dysgenic fertility effect is a “headwind” limiting further IQ gains that would otherwise have been possible. 

“Demographic headwind” is a quote from Charles Murray in The Bell Curve (1994), which I haven’t read. There has been some criticism of the model at the heart of Point 2, but for the purposes of this discussion let’s assume that Points 1 and 2 are true. I haven't done the homework to form an opinion on the model and theory (which is clear since my citation is to a Wikipedia summary), but I have no a priori reason for doubting it.

This weaker framing of the dysgenic hypothesis is more defensible than Dutton’s deranged logic in Witches. However, I have an instinctive aversion to counterfactual arguments that assume the hypothesis: “Yes, IQ has been rising, but imagine how much more it would have risen if not for the dysgenic headwind.” It reminds me of New Deal defenders saying “Yes, the economy was historically awful for a long time during the Great Depression, but imagine how much worse it would have been if not for FDR’s amazing market interference!” or “Yes, the Civil War was historically destructive, but imagine how much worse it would have been if not for Lincoln’s amazing leadership!” All of these arguments are difficult to support empirically, but not implausible. Those who have other reasons to like FDR, or Lincoln, or dysgenics theory will be able to find evidence in support of their preferred conclusion, but the evidence will remain unconvincing to those otherwise inclined. 

But granting for the sake of argument that new data arrives a week from today that convinces everyone, and now we all know without a doubt that fertility trends have been creating a downward headwind on IQ gains - I don’t know, I still don’t see it as a big deal. Apparently, non-genetic effects can act progressively over long time frames (eg the Flynn effect) with order-of-magnitude larger impact (10 pts per generation up vs. 0.8 down). And we even see short time period up and down oscillations of much larger effect size, like whatever is going on in Norway (3 points up and then 3 down all in 30 years which is very unlikely to have a genetic explanation). If we are worried about the collapse of civilization (as in Dutton’s book title) - yes there are a lot of cracks in the foundation of the West that are starting to show, but dysgenic fertility is just not one of of them.

But what if we extend the 0.8 points per generation headwind (assuming the theory is correct) out to 10, 50, 100 generations - especially if the Flynn effect comes to and end, which it surely must at some point? Doesn’t that eventually become a calamity for society? (Obviously you can’t project a linear decrease indefinitely since IQ can’t go negative, but you know what I mean.) I have two arguments against that line of reasoning. The first is just that so much can happen in unpredictable ways that distant future prophecies are futile, especially attempts to extrapolate a straight line from current trends. Second, since the Great Recession in the US, fertility is in steep decline across basically all demographics (including my own branch of Christianity), with the biggest drops among the highest fertility groups. Such a general decline would tend to reduce the difference between the higher fertility and lower fertility groups, significantly reducing the driving force for the hypothesized dysgenic fertility. In other words the dysgenic fertility effect on IQ (which is too small to be verified today) is likely to become even less important in the future, if current trends continue. 

[This is a good place to mention Richard’s second point which was the problem of anti-natalism. Here I strongly agree with Richard that this is a problem. Our culture no longer values children. It prioritizes the desires of adults over the well-being of children, which is inexcusable, and downplays the amazing ability women have to bring children into the world. I don’t have an easy solution to this problem, but if the government wants to implement pro-natalist programs that give lots of money per child, my wife and I with our seven children - eight in May - will gladly accept it.]

It is absolutely not true that the dysgenic effect on intelligence is “just truth,” or “just science.” It’s a hypothesis as yet unsupported by empirical evidence. But if new data comes in that gives us greater certainty about the dysgenic fertility hypothesis and intelligence, we could consider social engineering projects to encourage the “wrong” people to have fewer children and/or to encourage the “right” people to have more children. But wouldn’t we get a bigger bang for the buck by identifying and influencing the non-genetic effects that apparently have an order of magnitude larger ability to impact IQ? I would imagine, for example, that a top priority would be to overhaul the K-12 education system in the US to make it less horrible. Or if there were anything we could do to reduce alcohol and drug use, or promote traditional 2-parent family structures, I imagine we would see big gains. 

Even if we come to accept the dysgenic fertility hypothesis, there is no civilizational imperative for policy action that overrides moral considerations. And on the moral question, let’s face it - social engineering with the goal of counteracting dysgenics would be called “eugenics.” The legacy of early 20th century eugenics includes forced sterilizations and state sponsored murder. And don’t say that sort of thing could never happen again - even today, there is an ongoing genocidal campaign of selective abortion against down-syndrome babies. Do these abortions increase our average IQ of society - surely yes, but at a great cost to our humanity.

I thought open support for eugenics was an extremely fringe position, but seeing eugenics-adjacent ideas pop up recently in sources I respect has me worried. From Edward Dutton's deceptive framing in Witches, his readers might see eugenics as a conservative solution with promise to restore the West to a time before the social upheavals of the modern age, when strong families were the backbone of society and everyone went to church. But don't be fooled - eugenics is the embodiment of the worst tendencies of modernity and of out of control scientistic hubris. 

If we are facing a civilizational crisis, it is not from a decline in intellectual but moral fortitude. It is not because we are too dumb, but because we are too proud, selfish, and cruel. It is because we have forgotten to love God with all our hearts and to love our neighbor as ourselves. Eugenics with its cold-hearted judgements can only accelerate this decline. Remember also, that once enabled, eugenics tools would be in the hands of the government. If our future is more corrupt than the present, what would prevent the more unscrupulous of our politicians, backed by a polarized constituency, from unleashing eugenics ideas and strategies against political enemies, as has happened in the past? Lets please keep this Pandora's Box closed.