We do not have the data to decide these issues on a "scientific" basis. What we have to seek, I think, is the villains who have large quantitative effects. The cults where one prepotent male's genes crowds out the less than alpha males (natural "followers") might be thought to lead to a sub-race of super men. But in those places were the male's reproductive force ought to be most concentrated -- those with polygamy and concentrated wealth appear to lead to undistinguished progeny. The powerful athletes, brilliant soldiers, corporate leaders, great scientists and lucky gamblers seem to come from U.S. and Europe, not from Muslim Africa and Asia. There is something far more powerful than selective genetics working here. But if a state systematically tried to elminate predators by killing off the ones that displayed the most violence, it would inevitably spread the predator genes among the population (assuming they are, as they almost must be, recessive). I think it is almost certain that the State must destroy the get of the master predator, not just the predator himself. Hard for sentimentalists like us to do -- but, if the basis for the predator is genetic -- and if the object is to be shut of predator genes, then something that ought to be done. I think there is little evidence (as if it had been studied) that the most vigorous sterilizers of retarded people during the first half of this century (states like Georgia and North Carolina, as I recall) produced an enhancement of the moral character of its people. (still very criminal states).
While the microgenetic outcomes of allowing "inferiors" to breed may seem obviously dysgenic, the total population effect may be swamped by other causes. |
