
Why the West should be worried about Chinese Eugenics (2013) - roymurdock
http://edge.org/responses/what-should-we-be-worried-about
======
hingisundhorsa
"For a thousand years, China has been ruled by a cognitive meritocracy
selected through the highly competitive imperial exams. The brightest young
men became the scholar-officials who ruled the masses, amassed wealth,
attracted multiple wives, and had more children."

Author manages to squeeze a topping of first semester Introduction to China
with a thick crust of massive unsubstantiated overreach.

"hunting for sets of sets of IQ-predicting alleles. I know because I recently
contributed my DNA to the project, not fully understanding the implications."

Nice autopraise, mildly disguised.

"After a couple of generations, it would be game over for Western global
competitiveness."

Seriously? There was an otherwise intelligent guy working for us who started
spouting this kind of drivel. We noticed it all started after he got assigned
a female manager and then subsequently a non-white manager. Some people have
mild racial hangups, which they then externalize in odd ways like China peril.

~~~
wavegeek
I too am rather skeptical of the claim of 15 points per generation.

Look at the intense selection on the Ashkenazi Jews over maybe 1500 years
which has only produced an average IQ of 115 (there are alternate theories for
their high IQs).

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_Jewish_intelligence](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_Jewish_intelligence)

Selection of dog breeds for intelligence (German Shepherds, Jack Russell
terriers, Poodles vs eg King Charles Cavaliers, Corgis) seems to have produced
a large gap but it took a long time - dogs have been domesticated for ~5,000
years.

Generally selection works quickly at first, by filtering the population for
the desired trait. Then it slows dramatically as the process is limited by new
beneficial mutations which are rare.

It is noteworthy that genes for high IQ seem to come at a price. Read up about
Einstein's son Eduard for example.

Final point: maybe parents will not want to select for IQ. Maybe they would
prefer to select for beautiful daughters for example?

~~~
guelo
The Ashkenazi thing is bullshit. If you follow the references in the Wikipedia
article looking for hard statistical evidence of higher IQ you end up with
very thin sourcing from two iffy papers.

~~~
wavegeek
Wikipedia is not a reliable source, particularly on politically contentious
matters such as this.

------
sytelus
My guess is that eugenics experiments on humans would most likely turn in to
disaster, not just from ethical perspective, but from the desired outcome
perspective.

For animals, it's routine to target a specific trait such as more milk or less
aggressiveness and do planned breeding to successfully get the desired
outcome. However what we forget is that those animals suffer from many side
effects when their one feature is amplified out of proportion. For instance,
you can successfully get dog that is super small or super large but they would
suffer from severe issues such as bad eyesight or frickle bones. For humans,
this gets far more complicated. The intelligence is hardly indicated by ill-
defined measurements such as IQ. We don't even dare quantify "creativity" and
"taste" which are often drivers to major breakthroughs. In any case, let's say
if you do try human breeding to target these qualities and you do end up with
people with very high IQ - you can count on lots of potential side effects
such as schizophrenia and other mental disorders that dominates lives of
people with such out-of-proportion amplified characteristics. On the other end
there is a strong argument for random trials, aka, let nature decide
evolution. Most high-impact human beings, from Newton to Einstein to Hawking
were not the product of other high impact human beings or even high IQ
parents, for that matter. They spontaneously appeared on the scene and many
times nurture played much stronger role in any case.

~~~
jarek-foksa
If selective breeding based exclusively on IQ criteria would produce
significant number of individuals with schizophrenia and other mental
disorders then I would just update the breeding criteria to eliminate those
unwanted traits from the gene pool as well. After all, evolution is all about
trials and errors.

~~~
hobbes78
You'll probably end up with each guy trying to find the best girl he can, and
each girl trying to find the best guy she can... Evolution proved it to work
:) We should concentrate instead on removing impediments to this, such as
arranged marriages, rapes and accidental pregnancies... Contraception is
helpful on the latter...

~~~
jarek-foksa
Natural selection works fine, but relying exclusively on it might be dangerous
for the human species in the longer run. Millions of species have died out
because they were unable to adapt to the changing environment fast enough.

In the near future (in evolutionary timeline) in order to survive we might be
forced to colonise other planets or cooperate with machines that are orders of
magnitude more intelligent than we are today. We either learn how to adapt
rapidly or we will be out of the evolutionary game.

------
hyp0
The super villian's handbook for creating a master race:

1\. _encourage diversity._ This expands the genepool, and the combinations of
genes. In particular, allow mating of people with "disorders" because (1) you
don't know what other valuable genes they have, (2) the gene directly
responsible for the "disorder" may have other benefts (consider sickle cell
anaemia), and (3) what is considered a disorder in a present context might be
beneficial in a future situation.

2\. _increase population_. This increases the chances of mutations, and
therefore of beneficial mutations; and especially the chance of beneficial
combinations of genes.

The thing you do not want to do is to select for particular traits! This is
primarily because we do not actually know which traits will end up being
ideal. Anything else is breeding exotic show-dogs, which are usually no match
for the first mongrel that comes along. That is, the mongrel is the superior
dog.

Disregard the above if you don't actually want to create a master race, but
instead want to control other people and/or feel better about yourself. That's
a different handbook.

~~~
jarek-foksa
Selective breeding is the primary reason why Canis lupus is one of the most
diverse species now. Excessive interbreeding between races can impair
diversity just like too little interbreeding.

------
santoriv
Pretty good critique of this article ->
[http://eastasiastudent.net/china/edge-org-chinese-
eugenics-r...](http://eastasiastudent.net/china/edge-org-chinese-eugenics-
rubbish)

------
keane
>China has been running the world's largest and most successful eugenics
program for more than thirty years

From what I know about eugenics programs this is horrible! You have my
attention!

>A more mature response would be… asking… how can they help us to keep up as
they create their brave new world?

Oh.. so your only concern was that there might be more Chinese people than
white people in the future. So… basically a racist rationale for promoting
eugenics in this country. Not cool Geoffrey.

~~~
Zuider
There are already more Chinese people than 'white' people. They've won! Please
join the queue at the nearest surrender booth.

------
LiweiZ
As a native Chinese, I found most of articles to see my country as "the next
big thing" or something like that are either: 1. lack of enough homework to
know a bit deeper of what they are talking about or 2. intended to serve the
opposite purpose of what the article itself means.

------
beering
Is this written by the same Geoffrey Miller who said that fat people don't
have the willpower to finish a PhD?

~~~
wmt
Indeed it is.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoffrey_Miller_%28psychologist...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoffrey_Miller_%28psychologist%29)

------
johnsmith33
As a chinese, I can safely assure you that this article is utter bullshit.
Typical of the kind written by western scholars without a single shred of
understanding of the chinese culture. The chinese culture is one which places
emphasis on the cream of the crop i.e. the top scholars, scientist etc.
Politicians usually rise to power through connection or by slowly working
their way up. This is completely contrary to those of the west where
politicians are usually those who are the best at convincing people, not
chosen because of their ability. The west worships democracy and condamns
china for it single party rule, yet they set double standards when it comes to
human right abuses such as guantanamo bay. What they seem to forget is that
china has 1.35 billion people, 4.3 times those of America. Any problem the US
has will be amplified by 4.3 times.

~~~
eric_h
It is a tremendous stretch to call this guy a scholar using this piece as an
example. When scholars (western or otherwise) write an essay to make a point,
they back it up with evidence from sources other than themselves. This article
was not a scholarly work.

------
roymurdock
I would be interested to hear the Chinese perspective on the whole eugenics
program, especially after many of the bold claims made by the author.

Would also like to hear opinions on the author's claim that IQ could be
increased 10-15 points on average, per generation. Sounds very unlikely to me.

~~~
meric
Maybe this would be of relevance:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hua%E2%80%93Yi_distinction](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hua%E2%80%93Yi_distinction)

"In its cultural form, the Hua–Yi distinction assumed Chinese cultural
superiority, but also implied that outsiders could become Chinese by adopting
Chinese values and customs."

What it means is Chinese identity is tied to culture, rather than tied to the
actual physical body.

The author's article's point amounts to: "The smartest Chinese tend to be more
successful and can afford more children, and this is eugenics."

~~~
zo1
>'The author's article's point amounts to: "The smartest Chinese tend to be
more successful and can afford more children, and this is eugenics."'

Agreed, and it sounds like the author has an axe to grind for some odd reason.
It's not eugenics that he's attacking only, note the implicit blame of
"Darwinians" and "Galtonians" as being a cause for these policies.

------
contingencies
Total bullshit.

Firstly, the fact that these terms exist in language and officialdom is
meaningless. There is perhaps nowhere else in the world today sporting a
greater gap between the official line and the reality of popular life than
mainland China.

Secondly, Chinese popular nutrition is still in the dark ages, its common
currency being tradition, old-wives hearsay and happenstance. Things that are
imported or claimed to be imported are held in high esteem for no other
reason. Basic biology is barely taught.

I've been here on and off for 13 years, mostly on, and that's most of my adult
life. I was born in Australia, my wife is Chinese, and we chose to have our
kid in Thailand. However, I have many friends who have had children here and
in fact this morning we just visited a friend in a local hospital who had just
had a C-section. Frankly, the kid was wasted looking and it seemed obvious to
me that they'd scheduled the operation prematurely.

Thirdly, the author confuses Confucian tradition (family lineage oriented for
2000+ years) and eugenics. The benefits of coming from an aristocratic
background of eating well, education and the social network that brings is
recognized in all societies. Choosing not to have a child (to kill them
because of genetic status) is something else entirely, and even checking the
sex of your baby is outlawed here... which isn't to say it doesn't happen,
just that it's a lot more on the 'no popularly accessible eugenics' side than
the west.

However, there is a hint of reality in the article. The Chinese government has
for decades collected the blood of foreigners visiting the country, ostensibly
as a medical exam to check whether you have some life-threatening disease and
may spread it about the country but obviously partly as a backslap to other
countries for doing the same and partly as a money spinner. I have often
supposed that database, which is certainly linked to other information about
visitors such as who they are, where they come from, who their family is,
where they have been and what they are nominally doing in the country, is
being compiled in to a massive global genetic database for research purposes.
That much is perhaps real, but the eugenics line as spouted here is to my mind
utterly baseless.

------
austinz
Are there any sources (besides this rather fantastical article) that BGI-
Shenzhen is conducting large-scale research into the genetics behind human
intelligence, and that if so that research is going towards some sort of
comprehensive national eugenics policy? Has anyone else written about this
sort of project? Or is this all just (rather misguided) wishful thinking?

> After a couple of generations, it would be game over for Western global
> competitiveness.

I would expect that providing proper nutrition, health care, and primary and
secondary education to the majority of Chinese children (especially those in
the marginalized countryside) would be far more important than having a
handful of rich families gestating designer babies.

e.g. iodine deficiency:

1996: "The World Health Organization says that of the estimated 1.6 billion
cases worldwide of iodine deficiency, nearly a third, or 500 million, are in
China." [http://www.nytimes.com/1996/06/04/world/china-confronts-
reta...](http://www.nytimes.com/1996/06/04/world/china-confronts-retardation-
of-millions-deficient-in-iodine.html)

2006: "After a 10-year government campaign, over 90 percent of people use
iodized salt, still leaving 100 million facing deficiency."
[http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/16/health/16iodine.html](http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/16/health/16iodine.html)

~~~
briandh
> Are there any sources (besides this rather fantastical article) that BGI-
> Shenzhen is conducting large-scale research into the genetics behind human
> intelligence

Yes, that is well known, e.g., [http://www.nature.com/news/chinese-project-
probes-the-geneti...](http://www.nature.com/news/chinese-project-probes-the-
genetics-of-genius-1.12985) (depending on how you define large-scale -- see
the piece).

> if so that research is going towards some sort of comprehensive national
> eugenics policy?

Now _that_ , as far as I know, is mere speculation, albeit speculation that
has been bandied about by many more individuals than just the author of this
piece.

~~~
austinz
Exactly what I was looking for. Thanks.

------
jleader
Is it wrong of me that the title "Evolutionary Psychologist" sets off warning
bells?

------
r721
Previous discussion:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5659344](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5659344)

------
romanpoet
This is hilarious. I also contributed to BGI-Cognitive Genomics.

------
bayesianhorse
My belief is that the idea of "intelligence being genetic" has zero practical
benefits.

Good health (and all the factors contributing to this) and education will
probably out-explain genetics for decades to come, and any significant amount
of genomic selection in humans would be futile.

------
tn13
China's increasing economic power is being converted into soft-power where
every scholars writes such baseless stuff glorifying China. This article has
less to do with reality of human population and more to do with Chinese
investments in western scholars and media.

------
frozenport
I think they are correct in that Eugenics should be taken more seriously, if
not to explain better why it doesn't work. We may find that some things are
easy to eliminate while others are impossible.

------
glomph
Did anyone read the article from Helena Cronin that was one after the Eugenics
one? Absolute drivel. Even worse than the Eugenics piece.

------
scarfez
love the humblebrag he snuck in there

