Jim Flynn against eugenics
http://alliance.org.nz/blog/?p=90
July
10th, 2007
Jim Flynn against eugenics
A report appeared in the Sunday Star Times (8 July 2007) where Professor Jim Flynn was wrongly identified as supporting the idea of “eugenics.”
Jim Flynn is Alliance spokesperson on finance and tax, although the article was not related in any way to the Alliance.
Jim Flynn appeared on Close Up last night Monday 9 July and in a live interview strongly denied any such views. For those of you with broadband internet, you may wish to see the interview which can be found at TVNZ.
Jim is internationally known for his academic research into IQ and has consistently argued against eugenics and racist ideas in his work. He has consistently supported social measures to reduce inequality and improve life for all people, not just the wealthy.
Below Jim Flynn explains his position in the debate.
Flynn and Eugenics
“This is a classic case of when you state a position in order to argue against it, you get identified with it. I do not think the differential birth rates of university educated and other people is important and I think it would be ridiculous to treat it as a “problem” to be solved. When I am faced with people with a eugenics programme who believe the contrary, I argue with them as follows. I think you will see how my arguments can be converted into the stuff that has appeared in the press. Those of you that watched close up know that I put an end to that.
(1) The correlation between university education and
IQ.
THEM: Look at how important this is.
ME: It is not
strong but mild. True, university cuts out the lowest 25% in
IQ but thousands of bright people never go to university.
This is particularly true of disadvantaged minorities.
(2)
The trend over time
THEM: But ever a weak correlation
would bite over 4 or 5 generations
ME: That means well
over 100 years. And my own research shows that IQ is rising
anyway, due to improved environment, so why get upset about
such a mild negative trend.
(3) What if the environment
stops improving
THEM: If that happens, you must grant
that there is reason for long-term concern.
ME: I doubt
it - a lot can happens over 100 years that would “cure”
the problem anyway
(4) Society and its future
THEM:
What could that be? Poor people have many more unplanned
children than the well off. They are evicted, suffer from
domestic violence, emotional stress. Their lives are chaotic
and they lose control.
ME: Well, let us hope that NZ does
something about all of that. Redistribution of wealth would
eliminate poverty, free education would lower barriers,
20-hour per week jobs with tenure and good child care
facilities would mean career women would be less likely to
put off having children. All of those things should be done
on their merits - and if done your so-called problem would
go away. It has gone away in Socialist countries like
Finland.
(5) Optimism vs. pessimism
THEM: So will NZ
actually do that?
ME: It may not. There seems to be no
end to our willingness to drift towards greater inequality.
But even so, science over the next 100 years may come up
with something (this was a prediction not a recommendation).
A contraceptive that would mean that you would have to plan
to have a child, not plan not to have one. It is possible
that at age 10 all boys and girls would be vaccinated
against having an unplanned child. There may be some who
would refuse this, but the age of puberty is dropping and we
may be faced with mothers and fathers of that age. I suspect
that would change some minds.
(6) Injections vs.
“water”
THEM: Do not injections have side-effects?
And would you not need another injection to have a
child?
ME: They do, but I hope these problems will be
eliminated. It may be that drinking a glass of water a day
would pose less of a risk - and then you could become
fertile just by going off it for a month. You could have
this “water” free at the super market. Putting it it the
drinking water is a medical possibility but not a political
one - look at the florin controversy.
(7) Good or
bad
THEM: So you would welcome a scientific
breakthrough?
ME: I would indeed. No more chance of
getting pregnant if raped, drugged, or drunk and every child
a planned child. Why not?
Judge for yourself whether this adds up to “put a contraceptive” in the drinking water tomorrow to keep poor women from breeding.”
ENDS