A new book argues race and genetics explain “the rise of the West.” Bad science explains the downfall of its ideas.
Nicholas Wade is not a racist. In his new book, A Troublesome Inheritance, the former science writer for the New York Times states this explicitly. “It is not automatically racist to consider racial categories as a possible explanatory factor.” He then explains why white people are better because of their genes. In fairness, Wade does not say Caucasians are better per se, merely better adapted (because of their genes) to the modern economic institutions that Western society has created, and which now dominate the world’s economy and culture. In contrast, Africans are better adapted to hot-headed tribalism while East Asians are better adapted to authoritarian political structures. “Looking at the three principal races, one can see that each has followed a different evolutionary path as it adapted to its local circumstances.” It’s not prejudice; it’s science....
...Wade argues that genetic adaptation can explain the behavioral and societal differences we observe in human racial groups.
Wade’s hypothesis faces a distinct challenge since, unlike the evolution of hair, few complex social behaviors — especially in humans — have identifiable genetic components....
What makes Wade’s book so troublesome is that he offers no scientific evidence to support his racial hypothesis. None. In fact, Wade acknowledges himself that his ideas on this topic are “leaving the world of hard science and entering into a much more speculative arena at the interface of history, economics and human evolution.”
Nevertheless, because he thinks academics have suppressed the importance of genetics and race in human history for political reasons, Wade charges ahead and concludes, confidently, that Western civilization is a Darwinian success story. ...
This selection pressure, Wade says, was an agrarian economy and the Industrial Revolution. Individuals who were more productive, and delayed their gratification by saving instead of spending, gained wealth at a faster rate and had larger families. (Wade cites one estimate from England suggesting that those with £1,000 or more at death had an average of 4 children while those with less than £25 had only 2). But, because there were a limited number of upper class families, most wealthy children had to marry beneath their station. These genetic entrepreneurs carried with them their industrious DNA down to the commoners....
If Wade’s argument is to be correct — that is, if genetics is to explain the transmission of social behavior throughout Europe and give rise to Western superiority — there would need to be evidence of strong heritability in the traits he thinks were important. Based on the evidence from Clark that Wade himself cites, this is not the case.Why is this important and why are we going to be hearing a lot more about it in general? Changing demographics. The percentage of white in total population is shrinking and also the percentage f whites in some traditionally predominant white countries. Moreover, with the emerging world, well, emerging, the power structure is shifting, albeit slowly away from white domination for the first time since the Industrial Revolution and modern technological innovation, especially military but also economic. With white losing their edge comes the inevitable reaction. We are only at the beginning stage of a powerful trend that will shape history.
If the central thesis of Wade’s evolutionary narrative about the rise of the West is so flawed, his explanation for other races has even bigger problems....A Troublesome Inheritance has been roundly criticized by scientists and journalists alike. Biologists such as H. Allen Orr and Jerry Coyne have pointed out its many scientific problems. Statistician and political scientist Andrew Gelman has identified the “naivete” in Wade’s eagerness to assume a genetic cause for any change in social behavior. Following their debate, the anthropologist Agustin Fuentes observed, “Wade ignores the majority of data and conclusions from anthropology, population genetics, human biology and evolutionary biology.” Even Wade’s former newspaper, the New York Times, carried a review panning the book. Unfortunately, readers lacking a background in science or journalism may not so easily spot Wade’s many errors. This could lead to even more troublesome issues given the excitement the book has generated among those predisposed to accept its conclusions.
Again, it comes down to power and loss of power.
Scientific American
On the Origin of White Power
Eric Michael Johnson
(h/t Brad DeLong)
2 comments:
Johnson: "Nicholas Wade is not a racist."
Maybe not, but he is racist.
Johnson: "In his new book, A Troublesome Inheritance, the former science writer for the New York Times states this explicitly. “It is not automatically racist to consider racial categories as a possible explanatory factor.”
Except for the question of what are racial categories. To say that genetics plays a part in behavior, even social behavior, is not to say that race does.
Johnson: Wade "then explains why white people are better because of their genes. In fairness, Wade does not say Caucasians are better per se, merely better adapted (because of their genes) to the modern economic institutions that Western society has created, and which now dominate the world’s economy and culture."
If there is a good fit between the institutions of modern Western societies and the genes of Westerners, it is rather that the institutions have adapted to the genes, rather than the other way around. Social change is quicker than genetic change.
Johnson: "In contrast, [Wade claims] Africans are better adapted to hot-headed tribalism"
Tell me that's not racist. Tell that to Cliven Bundy, BTW. Tell that to Viking berserkers. Tell it to the KKK.
Johnson: "while East Asians are better adapted to authoritarian political structures [according to Wade]."
Authoritarianism is hardly dead anywhere in the world. Not very long ago there were people who believed in the superiority of Western culture, based upon genetics. They called themselves Aryans, and created an extremely authoritarian political regime, the Third Reich. That is hardly the only example of Western authoritarianism, of course.
Johnson: "What makes Wade’s book so troublesome is that he offers no scientific evidence to support his racial hypothesis. None."
Indeed. You can call the book racist, it's all right.
Johnson: "Nevertheless, because he thinks academics have suppressed the importance of genetics and race in human history for political reasons,"
There are those in academia who reject the idea of genetic factors in social evolution, because they reject racism. Perhaps they go too far. However, that has not always been the case. In fact, Wade's views were popular in Western academia in the 19th century, and in line with scientific knowledge of the time. However, those hypotheses were rejected, not for political reasons, but for scientific reasons. They are bad science.
Prejudice: you would think that when we look at another human being, we would be able to see past the skin pigmentation (black, brown, white, yellow, red and every beautiful colour in-between). If the quality of the light changes, we might end up with a blue. In the same way you would think that we would see past genes; but that means understanding where consciousness comes from, which is a little more difficult if you believe from the get-go that consciousness arises from a fortuitous arrangement of theorised atoms. Matter resolves itself in nebulous dust; atoms precipitate from energy ….
Consciousness (close synonym energy) for me is trickle down and does actually lift all material boats (evolution)! Wouldn’t be the first time we had things upside down! Involution, then evolution.
I’ll just mention briefly again what Patanjali said over 5,000 years ago: the brain is just a physical machine, a transmitting station – mind is the ‘eye’ of Consciousness through which it views the lower world. Consciousness is the bridge between the world of the persona and that of which it is a tiny spark. Breeding human personas is no different to breeding horses (that’s why the Nazi’s adopted the swastika – a symbol of the cross of matter in motion as it begins to twirl, until the ends of the cross catch on fire and stream behind – but they sought to make the persona dominant by breeding a super-race). Ha! Matter twirls to evolve the vehicles - it’s the Intelligence riding the horse that counts. While Consciousness is ‘asleep’ to the lower world, the persona dreams! When peace awakens in the human heart, you know a rope has been lowered down to save you (the mighty ones and the humble ones). Patanjali took hold of that rope and began to climb; and the above is a part of what he found. When you see peace dawning in a person’s eyes, then you know the swastika has done its job, and the Consciousness has begun the bridge. Here, the symbol is the circle above the fully evolved cross (Venus). With Mercury (add an arc above the circle) the Consciousness begins to expand to the Sun above. Every now and again, someone arrives on this earth that can help people get in touch with the peace within them (just to be clear I am a kindergartener - I definitely don’t have that capability)! However the above description of Patanjali’s is factual to me. But in the world, the persona is busy busy busy with all of its grand schemes – so it may take a while for people to understand rope :-)
It took a really long time to work out where the rain came from; or that the earth wasn’t flat – people actually believed that!! Not understanding money as fiat is pretty mild compared to that – but understanding it does mean being more responsible. Imagine if the Nazi’s were all MMT savvy: the only thing to get funded would be project super-race! (Nowadays we call it oligarchy)!
Post a Comment