3 ms·

" Genes and racism S1R- Steven Rose notes in his recent letter (Nature 22 January, p.335) that a National Front journal New Nation has claimed to find support

" Genes and racism S1R- Steven Rose notes in his recent letter (Nature 22 January, p.335) that a National Front journal New Nation has claimed to find support for racism in my writings on sociobiology, as well as in those of Dawkins and Maynard Smith. Rose calls on the latter two authors to dissociate themselves from such misuse, although curiously he does not extend the same invitation to me. To keep the record straight, I am happy to point out that no justification for racism is to be found in the truly scientific study of the biological basis of social behaviour. As I stated in On Human Nature, "I will go further and suggest that hope and pride and not despair are the ultimate legacy of genetic diversity, because we are a single species, not two or more, one great breeding system through which genes flow and mix in each generation. Because of that flux, mankind viewed over many generations shares a single human nature within which relatively minor hereditary influences recycle through ever changing patterns, between the sexes and across families and entire populations" . lf there is a possible hereditary tendency to acquire xenophobia and nationalist feelings, it is a non sequitur to interpret such a hypothesis as an argument in favour of racist ideology. It is more reasonable to assume that a knowledge of such a hereditary basis can lead to the circumvention of destructive behaviour such as racism, just as a knowledge of the hereditary basis of haemoglobin chemistry and insulin production can lead to the amelioration of their pathological variants. l now call on Professor Rose to consider these and similar arguments raised in my writings. It is my hope that he will not confine himself, as he has in the past, to arguments that link sociobiology to racism and thus to continue to abet the very misuse which he piously claims to deplore. EDWARD0. WILSON Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA" https://www.nature.com/articles/289627b0.pdf https://www.nature.com/articles/289627b0.pdf

hilbert42 5y ago
"lf there is a possible hereditary tendency to acquire xenophobia and nationalist feelings, it is a non sequitur to interpret such a hypothesis as an argument in favour of racist ideology." Whether they are held in lay or scientific forums, this statement is central to many of the arguments over racism. The key issue in this sentence is its initial point, which is that we still do not know whether the human race has any hereditary tendency to acquire xenophobia. We need to determine for certain whether this is in fact true or otherwise. Guessing one way or other not only doesn't help but it also fuels the fires of those on either side of the debate. If we know the answer for certain then it's much easier to set a course to remedy the situation. If we are to make real progress then I believe it's cucial that we determine the facts and we need to do immediately. In the earlier posts some 14 days ago on SciAm and E.0.Wilson I made the following point: "As discussion and debate over gene expression has been in the high-stakes category both in the scientific community and across much of humanity for decades it would ultimately make sense to get to the scientific truth of the matter. If it eventuates and we learn for certain that human genes are in fact able to express themselves in ways that the vast majority of us humans now find morally repugnant and that such expression manifests in actual behaviour then as a species we'd be forced to deal with the problem head-on rather than sweep it under the carpet (as we now seem to be doing)."
- PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
  > we still do not know whether the human race has any hereditary tendency to acquire xenophobia. there is also Graeber & Wengrow's recent highlighting of Gregory Bateson's term "schizmogenesis", which is fundamentally a precursor to xenophobia. It refers to the tendency of subsets of human societies above a certain size to find ways to differentiate ("schism") themselves from others. We also have no idea if this is an inbuilt tendency and to what extent it may vary due to genetics.
  - hilbert42 5y ago
    That's interesting and it's something of which I was unaware. I'l check it out when I've a moment. Again, it highlights the very 'fragility' and sensitivity of any such discussions, and that we've still no idea of whether humans have this inbuilt tendency or not leaves us with big problems. The fact that the very mention of the word 'race' in many quarters will bring wrath down upon one is, in my opinion, unhealthy for society but that's the world that we live in (and clearly it makes life difficult for researchers). The fact that raceism is still so widespread and pervasive I've a sneaking suspicion that humans may have some inbuilt tendency. My worry is if this turns out to be so then I think that all hell will break loose. I don't reckon the world is ready for such discussion. Edit: I wonder if others share the same suspicions as me and it's the fear of the fact being verified beyond reasonable doubt that's the underlying reason for why discussions about race have become such a taboo.
  - hilbert42 5y ago
    Later.... As mentioned, I've since done some checking Graeber & Wengrow and Bateson's 'schizmogenesis'. Downloaded and finished reading one of G & W's papers available online and although not directly relevant it gives me food for thought. Also, I note their new book The Dawn of Everything which seems relevant. Bit pricey, but probably worth it seeing it's quite a tome at 703 pages. Again, thanks for the info. FYI, I note Graeber features again in posts to a current HN story titled "Thomas Hobbes’s Leviathan shaped modern politics" - The New Statesman. (That one's no problem, I've still my Leviathan text from my student days.) :-)
ImaCake 5y ago
Something you could not fault E. O. Wilson for is his beautiful and eloquent writing. I absolutely love this rebuttal even if I hesitate to agree with all of it. As someone working in population genetics I feel our best argument against “scientific racism” is simply that our social/genetic/environmental diversity is our greatest strength against our future known and unknown challenges. Embracing that diversity is the best chance we have of finding the right tools to succeed.

hilbert42 5y ago

"lf there is a possible hereditary tendency to acquire xenophobia and nationalist feelings, it is a non sequitur to interpret such a hypothesis as an argument in favour of racist ideology." Whether they are held in lay or scientific forums, this statement is central to many of the arguments over racism. The key issue in this sentence is its initial point, which is that we still do not know whether the human race has any hereditary tendency to acquire xenophobia. We need to determine for certain whether this is in fact true or otherwise. Guessing one way or other not only doesn't help but it also fuels the fires of those on either side of the debate. If we know the answer for certain then it's much easier to set a course to remedy the situation. If we are to make real progress then I believe it's cucial that we determine the facts and we need to do immediately. In the earlier posts some 14 days ago on SciAm and E.0.Wilson I made the following point: "As discussion and debate over gene expression has been in the high-stakes category both in the scientific community and across much of humanity for decades it would ultimately make sense to get to the scientific truth of the matter. If it eventuates and we learn for certain that human genes are in fact able to express themselves in ways that the vast majority of us humans now find morally repugnant and that such expression manifests in actual behaviour then as a species we'd be forced to deal with the problem head-on rather than sweep it under the carpet (as we now seem to be doing)."

PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
> we still do not know whether the human race has any hereditary tendency to acquire xenophobia. there is also Graeber & Wengrow's recent highlighting of Gregory Bateson's term "schizmogenesis", which is fundamentally a precursor to xenophobia. It refers to the tendency of subsets of human societies above a certain size to find ways to differentiate ("schism") themselves from others. We also have no idea if this is an inbuilt tendency and to what extent it may vary due to genetics.
- hilbert42 5y ago
  That's interesting and it's something of which I was unaware. I'l check it out when I've a moment. Again, it highlights the very 'fragility' and sensitivity of any such discussions, and that we've still no idea of whether humans have this inbuilt tendency or not leaves us with big problems. The fact that the very mention of the word 'race' in many quarters will bring wrath down upon one is, in my opinion, unhealthy for society but that's the world that we live in (and clearly it makes life difficult for researchers). The fact that raceism is still so widespread and pervasive I've a sneaking suspicion that humans may have some inbuilt tendency. My worry is if this turns out to be so then I think that all hell will break loose. I don't reckon the world is ready for such discussion. Edit: I wonder if others share the same suspicions as me and it's the fear of the fact being verified beyond reasonable doubt that's the underlying reason for why discussions about race have become such a taboo.
- hilbert42 5y ago
  Later.... As mentioned, I've since done some checking Graeber & Wengrow and Bateson's 'schizmogenesis'. Downloaded and finished reading one of G & W's papers available online and although not directly relevant it gives me food for thought. Also, I note their new book The Dawn of Everything which seems relevant. Bit pricey, but probably worth it seeing it's quite a tome at 703 pages. Again, thanks for the info. FYI, I note Graeber features again in posts to a current HN story titled "Thomas Hobbes’s Leviathan shaped modern politics" - The New Statesman. (That one's no problem, I've still my Leviathan text from my student days.) :-)

ImaCake 5y ago

Something you could not fault E. O. Wilson for is his beautiful and eloquent writing. I absolutely love this rebuttal even if I hesitate to agree with all of it. As someone working in population genetics I feel our best argument against “scientific racism” is simply that our social/genetic/environmental diversity is our greatest strength against our future known and unknown challenges. Embracing that diversity is the best chance we have of finding the right tools to succeed.