…and this is a 
There are no marching morons
Category:
Posted on: May 8, 2007 6:00 AM, by PZ Myers
I was sent a link to this editorial by the science-fiction writer, Ben Bova. I like part of the sentiment, where he's arguing that it's worth the effort to try and change the world, but a substantial part of it bugs me.
The most prescient — and chilling — of all the science fiction stories ever written, though, is "The Marching Morons," by Cyril M. Kornbluth, first published in 1951. It should be required reading in every school on Earth.
The point that Kornbluth makes is simple, and scary: dumbbells have more children than geniuses. In "The Marching Morons" he carries that idea to its extreme, but logical, conclusion.
Kornbluth tells of a future world that is overrun with dummies: men and women who don't know anything beyond their own shallow personal interests. They don't know how their society works, or who is running it. All they care about is their personal — and immediate — gratification.
I detest "The Marching Morons."
Bova gives an accurate summary; it's also the primary plot point of the movie Idiocracy. It's also the premise behind eugenics and behind a lot of right-wing phony elitism. It's wrong. It was a very popular story, but the reason isn't complimentary: it fed into a strain of self-serving smugness in science-fiction fandom, the idea that people who read SF are special and brilliant and superior, we are the technological geniuses and far-seeing futurists, while the mundanes leech off our vision. The eugenics movement built on the same us-vs.-them mentality, that there are superiors and inferiors, and the inferiors breed like cockroaches.
The most troubling part of it all is the attempt to root the distinction in biology—it's intrinsic. "They" are lesser beings than "us" because, while their gonads work marvelously well, their brains are inherently less capacious and their children are born with less ability. It's the kind of unwarranted labeling of people that leads to decisions like "three generations of imbeciles are enough"—bigotry built on bad biology to justify suppression by class.
People, they are us.
There are no grounds to argue that there are distinct subpopulations of people with different potentials for intelligence. Genes flow fluidly — if you sneer at the underclass and think your line is superior, I suspect you won't have to go back very many generations to find your stock comes out of that same seething mob. Do you have any Irish, or Jewish, or Italian, or Native American, or Asian, or whatever (literally—it's hard to find any ethnic origin that wasn't despised at some time) in your ancestry? Go back a hundred years or so, and your great- or great-great-grandparents were regarded as apes or subhumans or mentally deficient lackeys suitable only for menial labor.
Are you staring aghast at the latest cluster of immigrants in this country, are you fretting that they're breeding like rabbits? That generation of children will be the people your kids grow up with, go to school with, date, and marry. It may take a while, but eventually, your line will merge with theirs. Presuming you propagate at all, your genes are destined to disperse into that great living pool of humanity. Get used to it.
Furthermore, intelligence is an incredibly plastic property of the brain. You can nurture it or you can squelch it — the marching morons will birth children with as much potential as a pair of science-fiction geeks, and all that will matter is how well that mind is encouraged to grow. Even a few centuries is not enough to breed stupidity into a natural population of humans — that brain power may lay fallow and undernourished, but there isn't enough time nor enough pressure to make substantial changes in the overall genetics of the brain.
That's where the Kornbluth story fails. It assumes the morons are unchangeably moronic, and treats the elite as unchangeably special. The only solution to their problem is to get rid of the morons, launching them into space to die. Bova's editorial, while not as cynically eliminationist, still pretends that the only answer is perpetuation of a distinction that doesn't exist biologically.
Here's the real solution to the "marching moron" problem: teach them. Give them fair opportunities. Open the door to education for all. They have just as much potential as you do. Bova complains that people aren't willing to work for change, but this is exactly where we can work to improve minds — but we won't if we assume the mob is hopeless.
I have to confess to taking these kinds of stories personally. My family was probably what would be called the working poor nowadays, when I was growing up I was called white trash more than a few times, and yes, I come from a large family. My parents did not have the educational opportunities I did, but they were smart and self-taught and made sensible, practical choices in their life, and they cared to give all of their kids a chance. I can testify from personal experience that if there's a problem, it's not in ability — it's in a culture that dismisses broad swathes of the population because of who their families are, or how much money they make, and perpetuates inequities of opportunity on the basis of bigotry and classism.
I knew this article would bring out the pseudoscientific advocates of facile genetics, and there they are, already babbling away in the comments.
I know there are constraints on intelligence; there is individual variation in capacity, and there are almost certainly some biological bases for that, and also for differences in the kind of intelligence individuals express. This isn't about that. It's about whether there are significant differences in the distribution of the genetic constraints on human intelligence between subpopulations, and whether we are justified in writing off segments of our population as incurable morons whose progeny are similarly tainted. I say no to both.
You'd be hard-pressed to argue that the diverse groups marked by ethnic and class distinctions in the U.S. even count as distinct populations in any biological sense. There are social barriers to breeding, but they are sufficiently porous that over the course of time needed to set up genetic differences that matter, they're negligible.
The other premise of the marching morons scenario, that the underclass would sink deeper and deeper into stupidity, is completely absurd. There aren't any human subcultures that don't value problem-solving and cleverness, where apathy and dull-wittedness are desirable traits in a mate (again, there are individuals who are contrary, but we're talking about populations here.) Growing up, I experienced that social pressure that makes getting good grades in school a problem for fitting in with a certain peer group — but that isn't about despising intelligence, it's about conforming to the trappings of your group and not adopting the markers of another class, especially when that class has a habit of treating you like dirt and talking abstractly about how to expunge you, your family, and your friends from the gene pool.
And no, eating brie, going to Harvard, and reading the Wall Street Journal are not indicators of ability — they are properties of class. Drinking beer, learning a trade, and reading Sports Illustrated doesn't mean you're dumber, or that there are genes driving your choices — it means you are the product of a particular environment. Yet we all practice this fallacy of judging someone's intelligence by how they dress or their entertainment preferences, and society as a whole indulges in the self-fulfilling prophecy of doling out educational opportunities on the basis of economic status.
There are mobs of stupid people out there. Sterilizing them or shipping them off to Venus won't change a thing, though, no matter how effective your elimination procedures are, because you'll just breed more from the remaining elite stock. Similarly, lining up the elites against the wall won't change the overall potential of the population — new elites will arise from the common stock. The answer is always going to be education and opportunity and mobility. That's what's galling about Kornbluth's story, that it is so one-dimensional, and the proposed solution is a non-solution.
Comments
BRONDO's got what plants crave. It's got electrolytes.
What are electrolytes, do you even know?
It's what... they use to make... BRONDO!
But WHY do they use them to make BRONDO?
Cuz BRONDO's got electrolytes.
***
Ever feel like that guy?
Posted by: Inoculated Mind | May 8, 2007 6:16 AM
I quite enjoy science fiction but the "self-serving smugness in science-fiction fandom" is somewhat annoying. It's been there almost since fandom started. The earliest example I know is from the early 1950s with the phrase "fans are slans" and it continues to be seen in terms like "mundanes" and "muggles" as terms to distinguish non-fandom from fandom.
Posted by: Andrew Dalke | May 8, 2007 6:33 AM
I would like what PZ says to be true.
There is certainly an enormous environmental component to intelligence. Smart people are the result of investment in the education of our children.
It's not so long ago that the Irish were treated as morons by the British. Even when I was growing up (I'm 34 and Irish) it was considered hilarious for British comedians to tell jokes about how stupid the Irish were. These jokes were just the smiling face of a real and very dangerous discrimination that is only now beginning to erode.
But...
Intelligence itself is heritable and we select for it like crazy. Most university graduates (I suspect) marry other university graduates, or at least people with similar intellectual and educational backgrounds. How can this not have a long term effect?
I think that these questions will become largely moot when people start to genetically engineer the DNA of their children. It seems inevitable to me that the world will eventually be divided into those who can afford gene manipulation, and those who can't. Then we're really going to have problems.
Also, I don't agree that the brain is so 'plastic'. Reading Steven Pinker's 'Blank Slate' disabused me of that notion. Ultimately, education can only do so much- the best scientists, chess-players, musicians etc. were blessed with a combination of education and innate talent/genius. There's no teacher on the planet who could turn me into a great opera singer- I just don't have the talent.
--------------
Anyway, I agree that there is no such thing as a race of morons and I think PZ is dead right on that.
Posted by: Christian Burnham | May 8, 2007 6:50 AM
I'm going to get this horribly wrong, but wasn't there some statistical work done a couple of years ago that basically showed that for a given mostly-well-defined geographic area, about 80% of the people in about the year ...was it 1100? 600? that's broad, but something in that range... were ancestors of every person alive today, and the other 20% had no descendants?
I mean, these kinds of statements presume not only a direct and rigid correlation between genetics and intelligence, but a rigid stratification of mating practices based upon such criteria.
Posted by: Melanie S. | May 8, 2007 6:55 AM
It's not so long ago that the Irish were treated as morons by the British
The joke's on the brilliant British now. The Irish "morons" have a higher per capita GNP
Posted by: Dianne | May 8, 2007 7:09 AM
You would love 'The Space Merchants' with Fred Pohl.
Posted by: Branedy | May 8, 2007 7:16 AM
If given the choice I would rather spend my time with a group of kids with downs syndrome than a listen to a self proclaimed genius (idiot) such as Bova.
While there is no such thing as a breeding population of intellectually inferior humans if one takes moron to mean deeply ignorant of and oblivious to the workings of the world around them, then the "future world that is overrun with dummies: men and women who don't know anything beyond their own shallow personal interests. They don't know how their society works, or who is running it. All they care about is their personal -- and immediate -- gratification." comes very close to describing our current reality.
So PZ has it exactly right the morons are us. As for educating the ignorant masses, when was the last time anyone convinced a creationist that evolution is indeed a fact. I guess overcoming that hurdle is a good measure of the level of difficulty involved in opening minds and making them receptive to knowledge.
Posted by: Fernando Magyar | May 8, 2007 7:17 AM
I almost wholeheartedly agree with Dr. Myers here - I remember reading 'The Marching Morons' and nodding through much of the beginning - the inanity, the idiocy - who couldn't identify with it? This carries one through to the horrific end when you realize, completely without knowing, that you've walked down the same paths of thought that Hitler and Galston did.
However, I do think the story is not as two-dimensional as that - coupled with the bad genetics is an excellent depiction the other component of "moron" - the active disdain for 'elites' or 'smarties' by the majority population in the story.
This is something I doubt anyone could argue with. The most determinative factor in my experience of these sorts of things is whether there's a hostility or respect towards learning (which is not the same thing as education). Those, as in Kornbluth's story, who think their ignorance should carry equal weight as your knowledge, are the "morons" we should always hold in contempt.
Family members who may not be educated can at least value education and pass on that value system to their children (which is how I imagine many families, certainly mine, emerged from the working poor). Morons may not be a genetic subgroup, but they're certainly a distinct one.
Posted by: Brandon Alspaugh | May 8, 2007 7:21 AM
I get tired of science fiction writers for taking credit for the predictions that worked out, but they never mention in their self-praise all of the things that they got wrong in predicting technology. Heinlein had "predicted" a lot of things in his science fiction that were far off the mark. Remember "moving sidewalks" or "Drafting Dan?" Of course he couldn't have foreseen the directions that technology would have taken that were tangential to his timelines.
The best science fiction examined the sociological implications of burgeoning technology, and the best writers didn't say "This is what is going to happen." The best science fiction asked "What if?"
And one of the major problems with society is not the innate intelligence of people in our society; it is the level of distraction and white noise presented by technology. Look at crap like "American Idol." People get wrapped up in that show and live or die for who is booted off the show and who survives. Our local Fox affiliate sets aside a major portion of its morning news program for discussion of the show; while in the meantime there is no coverage of any real science.
In Apollo 13 Lovell's family learns that the liftoff is not even being televised because the prospect of traveling to the moon is by then passe and no longer draws ratings. The problem that is leading to ignorance is not a reflection of the gene pool, it is the entertainment that people choose over learning.
I think that this is the biggest challenge that educators face. Yes, I would like to see people bring in chautauquas to their local communities in which people set aside special events for learning. Take the kids and learn about the latest advances in genetics and other exciting areas of research. Teach them Shakespeare, basic Latin and Greek, and teach them how to round out their lives; but face the fact that after an hour or two they are going to want to go back to TV and the Interwebs and their XBox 360's.
The "framing" that Nesbitt and Mooney need to figure out is how to make science competitive for our attention.
Posted by: Mike Haubrich | May 8, 2007 7:25 AM
I feel your pain. My family has been farmers for centuries (some branches still, quite happily, are). My grandfather broke the mold on that, and it continued to this day to me (who has no descendants and is never going to, thank you so much).
Even so, aren't the vast majority/totality of the genes that made me conserved into my cousins, including the farmers? Perhaps they can't program an object, but I certainly can't ID a crop fungus on sight. They're no less intelligent, per se, but the intelligence differs.
Posted by: MorpheusPA | May 8, 2007 7:30 AM
When faced with phrases such as 'qualified psychic', 'certified astrologer' or 'calibrating earth rays', I confess to having been often reminded of this story. While disliking the eugenic-related bit (they do get shot off into space to die), I found the ideas about how the people were kept placid interesting. I read the story ages ago, but wasn't there something like a Doctorate of Stenography, and weren't the cars' speedometers riggged to make it seem as if great speeds were reached. Just keep the disinformed populace happy. I wonder if I don't see things like that all the time. If I don't watch out I'll end up in conspiracy land.
As far as brains and genetics go, there is another story. I have forgotten who the author is, but the premise is that all children upon reaching a certain age have to take a standard test (after having been given a sort of truth serum to insure no cheating); those who do too well are killed (that's the reason for the serum, no intentional wrong answers). Thus is opposition to the government eliminated before it can form. Here smarts pop up despite the efforts of those in power, even if it doesn't last long. There is still a heavy slant towards nature rather than nurture, but at least it's not so disparaging of the 'masses'.
Posted by: nacky | May 8, 2007 7:36 AM
I second Branedy's motion. "The Space Merchants" is amazing. However, as far as I know, we don't yet have the supreme marketing that Pohl and Kornbluth dreamed up: alkaloids in a particular brand of snack food that make you crave a particular brand of cigarette, which contains alkaloids that give you a craving for a particular brand of soda, which contains alkaloids that make you yearn for that particular brand of snack food, ad infinitum.
Posted by: John Rynne | May 8, 2007 7:42 AM
Arthur Jensen of UC Berkeley is one of the most adamant exponents of the inherent genetic nature of "intelligence", which he equated with IQ scores. (You may recall that he argued on the basis of IQ scores that black kids are doomed not to be as smart as white kids -- although black kids with some white ancestors were superior to their 100% black cousins.) It's sadly ironic that Dr. Jensen's own daughter turned out to be congenitally handicapped in her cognitive functions. Could have happened to anyone, of course, which I think is the point.
Posted by: Zeno | May 8, 2007 7:45 AM
I feel the pain of people who support eugenics. It seems like such a wonderful idea until you learn about diversity, genetics and evolution. Even if one were to assume that the result of eugenics was "better" human individuals, a eugenic-ed population would become as fragile as today's chetahs. No matter how you look at it, genetic uniformity in a population is not the best way to be.
No, I have found the type of thinking that concludes favorably to eugenics is two dimensional and fundamentally lacks comprehensiveness.
That said, I will bow to the squid people as my superiors when they arrive.
Mike Fox
Posted by: Mike Fox | May 8, 2007 7:50 AM
If people say atheists are immoral, I can direct them to this post.
Thank you.
"There are no grounds to argue that there are distinct subpopulations of people with different potentials for intelligence." Yep. Meanwhile, Charles Murray was still spouting his "Bell Curve" nonsense in the Wall Street Journal as recently as this year (a 3-part series whose segments were among the most e-mailed Journal articles on the days they appeared; perhaps folks like feeling they richly deserve to be rich, eh?).
Further reading for those interested: "The Mismeasure of Man," by Stephen J. Gould; and "None of the Above," by David Owen.
Posted by: Jud | May 8, 2007 7:50 AM
Have to agree with PZ here. There are "morons" all over my family tree. Neither of my grandfathers graduated from high school, much less went to high school. Doesn't mean anything. Both of my parents have doctorates (one medical, the other "phony" :)
The fear of the overbreeding underclass is not a new concept. There's nothing new about it nor is there anything valid about it. Its scientific and mathematical premises are shoddy and, given the history of the past several thousand years, it simply doesn't bear up under scrutiny.
The "Marching Moron" thesis is just another way to hide racism behind pseudoscientific language. Nor is it validated if the target is "white trash".
Posted by: RickD | May 8, 2007 7:50 AM
I think PZ is looking at things a little too much from a gene'e eye perspective. The reality that the majority of us live in is not one in which we fret about conserving particular segments of our genome but rather about how society, now and in the forseeable future (which in practice means the next sixty to seventy years), affects our family and friends. In that sense the change in gene frequency within the population at large is not at issue. Society can, however, change at a much quicker pace than gene frequency, indeed cultural change has probably more in common with Lamarckian than pure Darwinian evolution. If this is the case then the dumbing down of society as a whole is certainly a possibility, the likelihood of which is dependent simply on the advantage of such a strategy to the majority of the populace. Ask yourself if its easier to live in most modern societies as a non questioning religious woo believer rather than an active skeptic (for instance a scientific researcher). Society wont get dumbed down because the dumb genes take over. Most likely there will always be some smart guys (and girls) at the top but I question whether our current societal environment provides enough rewards to encourage the development of cultural intelligence. Why should a scientific training, probably similar in time and effort to that of a physician and certainly more than a lawyer, be more financially equivalent to working in a fast food restaurant chain - although without the job security? Its not a question of actively eliminating the Al Bundys of the world, we simply need to make the alternative better.
Posted by: MartinC | May 8, 2007 7:50 AM
I first came across the 'stupid breeders' idea 40 years ago, while studying Biology at school. At first it worried me but then I asked myself "where is the evidence that we are less intelligent than our ancestors?". I have not found any reliable evidence of this kind, although there does seem to be some evidence to the contrary - the *recent* increase in IQ scores per generation. (Please nod the debate about IQ and intelligence through to another thread if neccessary).
My unconfirmed sweeping opinion is that, by and large, the really dumb and the really clever fail to contibute significantly to the next generation (by reason of early death or disinclination to breed). Everybody else breeds towards an average value of intelligence (suitable for the many cultural and environmental niches available) in an unplanned way. It is said that women try to have children by more successful/intelligent/taller men, and men try to have children by more physically attractive (showing 'good genes') women. If something like this was not been happening for the last half million years the human species would be markedly different or extinct.
Now the tricky question - if the idea behind the 'marching morons' is not well founded in fact, do we *need* to do anything different to optimise the intellectual capability of our species? This is now a cultural question, rather than an evolutionary one. Our cultural choices will either work or fail, but since they tend to be short term (only a few generations) there is plenty of scope for self correction if we get them wrong (of course many people may suffer or die in the meantime). We can't be sure yet if 'agriculture' or 'city life' are positve cultural choices.
Who can say that 'intelligence' will be a valuable trait in the future? The most valuable traits might be ability to survive on little water, resistance to new viruses and bacteria, stunning physical perfection, or even a small healthy family vs a big diseased family (in a crowded world).
My cultural viewpoint is that everyone should have the opportunity to make the best of themselves, and we should value ability and excellence across a broad spectrum of characteristics.
We live in interesting times.
Posted by: Bunjo | May 8, 2007 7:51 AM
I never interpreted Kornbluth's story as an attempt to endorse eugenics as much as a lament of the general intellectual slide of humanity as people become more and more incurious and raise children who are in turn more incurious. One doesn't need a biological connection to realize that if a person has absolutely no interest in learning or understanding the world around them, they are more likely to raise children with similar views (think creationists, or Fred Phelps).
His criticism of the overall intellectual slide is more clear in "The Little Black Bag", the 'prequel' to "The Marching Morons". There, he seems eerily prescient, when he describes how the educational system ends up dumbing down its degrees to meet the needs of the students: "Masters in Shorthand" or "Ph.D. - card filing". Considering yesterday had a post about including creationism as a physics class, Kornbluth doesn't seem too far off.
Posted by: gg | May 8, 2007 7:52 AM
No, it's not. It can be impaired, but causing it to develop further is essentially impossible. And this "there aren't superior/inferior classes of people!" argument is bogus, because very few human traits breed true, and the superiority/inferiority is determined by whole classes of genes. It's not a class of people but a class of traits that are the problem.
This sort of thing is why biolgists shouldn't post about psychology.
Posted by: Caledonian | May 8, 2007 7:54 AM
I think it can be equally dangerous to assume that intelligence is completely "plastic" and environmentally determined. There is no question that people are simply born differently. On a personal level : I have a good brain (in most respects) but I'm also physically unattractive. I would pay money to have the two swapped around. My sister is the opposite - a stereotypical bubble-headed blonde. (Out of interest, we're adopted and genetically unrelated). My (adoptive) parents are middle-of-the-road in both respects.
I realise one can't draw generalizations from anecdotal evidence, but this particular situation made me realise that what Steve Pinker was saying in "The Blank Slate" made perfect (if not quite-common-enough) sense.
What is the point of telling everyone they have the same "potential" if they actually don't? In an environment that favours people who have the ability to learn quickly, people who don't (people who *can't*) are going to suffer from discrimination BECAUSE it's assumed they have the "same potential". This applies to any other characteristic you care to name. Models are chosen for their looks rather than their intelligence. I'm *not* advocating treating anyone differently from anyone else (in a legal or a personal sense), merely suggesting we realise that each person has a different innate blend of good things and bad things about them and encouraging them to do well in an area in which they actually have a chance of success; anything else (e.g. any educational system at the moment) is designed for failure.
PZ, as a teacher I can't believe that you think all your students are equally equipped, mentally. You might *like* it to be true, but when you think about it, you will have to admit that some of them are just dumb.
I'm not saying any of these attributes correspond to race or ethnic groupings. I'm saying every individual (and this is really what the word means) is good at some things and bad at others. The idea is that certain types of abilities might be genetically coded for - the further, somewhat obvious corollary, is that there is a differential spread of those abilities amongst individuals in a population. Like hair color. Or physical beauty (which, I agree, has a large embryonic component, but that's essentially "genetic" at this level of discussion). Or being good at maths. Or being good at poetry. Or being good with people.
The main argument against this (my) point of view, is that it justifies discrimination and racism. It certainly does - if you broadly ascribe lack of ability to a large population based on an entirely unrelated genetic marker (such as skin color). But to realize that biology - and not the child - is the father of the man is not the same as saying that the son of criminals is any more likely to be a criminal because of innate tendencies.
I often summarize the innatist point of view as "Your genes have probably made you good at SOMETHING and it's important to recognize what that something is, so you can be happy."
I really see nothing controversial in this idea.
I'm commenting more on PZ's comments than on the original article. One needn't be a dyed-in-the-wool (ha) nurturist to realize that a "race of morons" is extremely unlikely to occur, and breeding for such a race - intentionally - would be very unlikely to succeed. So I agree with your criticism, but for different reasons.
Posted by: colin | May 8, 2007 7:55 AM
PZ, are you saying that intelligence (in humans) is not a quality that can be selected for?
If it's possible to select for it, then breeding habits within a population that favour people of lower intelligence with more descendants, will thereby lower the average IQ.
For what it's worth, I'm descsnded from the peasantry. And quite possibly from some kings as well. (It's said that almost everyone of English descent is related to William the Conqueror.)
Peole with superior intellects seem to crop up at random from 'unlikely' parentage - we must all know examples of this. So it's wrong to discriminate on the basis of someone's parents. But talking averages is another thing. The gene pool for any heritable quality can in principle be improved or degraded. Genetic Engineering will probably be a factor in this, in the future.
Posted by: Richard Harris, FCD | May 8, 2007 7:59 AM
While I was typing my lengthy diatribe, Caledonian posted a succint few lines that carry the gist of my entire rambling message, and say it better. Well done, Caledonian.
Posted by: colin | May 8, 2007 7:59 AM
No, IQ scores are normalized. It's performance on IQ tests that is slowly improving - it's called the Flynn Effect - not the attained scores.
You know when evolution denialists get together and post long, self-congratulatory threads about how they're not fooled by the difference between macroevolution and microevolution? You know how stupid they look to people who know even a little about the subject?
You are those people. Right now, on this topic, you are making yourselves look as dumb as the creationists look to you.
Posted by: Caledonian | May 8, 2007 8:15 AM
I generally figure that environmental factors cause at least 70% of variability in intelligence (insert hand waving definition of intelligence here).
But can't the Marching Morons concept still work even when environment is the dominant factor? Certainly such a trend could be derailed by better public health and education policies, fairer distribution of wealth, or changing patterns of family and community interaction, so it's not inevitable.
But is it really completely impossible? Could it not happen that a relatively small and subtle tendency toward lack of respect for education or intellectual endeavors drive functional intelligence down over multiple generations?
I read the story many years ago, and don't remember it well. I don't associate it with the smugness that shows up in, oh, Robert Heinlein's stories, or Jerry Pournelle's. But given the era in which it was written, when Modern and Progress and Growth were the annointed buzzwords, maybe it was intended as a reminder that there is still a Down -- that decadence is always an option.
Maybe we should consider Marching Morons to be a warning, rather than a prophecy.
Posted by: xebecs | May 8, 2007 8:15 AM
Caledonian,
Perhaps Ted said it best.
"You do understand that this issue right here, of intellectual arrogance, is the reason why people like you have a difficult problem with people.... I don't communicate an air of superiority over the people because I know so much more, and if you only read the books I know, and if you only knew the scientists I knew, then you would be great like me. Well, sir, there could be many things that you know well. There are other things that you don't know well. As you age, you'll find yourself wrong on some things, right on some other things. But please, in the process of it, don't be arrogant."
Posted by: MartinC | May 8, 2007 8:23 AM
I agree with the points raised by Fernando and Brandon that 'we' are leaning towards the march of the morons not because of breeding 'inferior genes' but because of a failure to cultivate a love of learning. It's always been hard to instill that particular virtue but modern culture seems to reward idiocy and parents and teachers are fighting against a strong tide.
Our morons are like bonsai - not bred but stunted.
Ross (from the country that thinks the phrase "Too clever by half" is an insult)
Posted by: Ross | May 8, 2007 8:23 AM
Ross: Ditto. You said what I was trying to say, but shorter and better. It's still early, and my Stylomatic 3000 takes a while to spin up.
Posted by: xebecs | May 8, 2007 8:31 AM
All of what PZ said is well and good, but it sort of eases around the fact that there really IS a "standing army" of morons currently out there. And like Bova said, they don't want to know much of anything beyond how to get what they want, they'll fight you tooth and nail to avoid learning anything (and half the time, to keep others from learning it), and they'll generally F things up with all the problems that an attitude and lifestyle such as this can cause.
Even while we acknowledge that their offspring have a chance for something better, you still have to ask-- what do you do with these folks NOW?
Posted by: DaveX | May 8, 2007 8:35 AM
Translation: don't make people feel bad because they're more ignorant than you are.
Well, guess what? Having their ignorance publically pointed out and mocked is one of the few things that can somestimes shame people into learning and thinking. Anyone who makes pronouncements that people with even a rudimentary grasp of the subject can instantly see are inane OUGHT to be mocked.
There's nothing shameful about ignorance. Lecturing others about their errors while knowing nothing about the subject - that's shameful. A point you don't seem to have considered: it's not arrogance if it's correct.
Posted by: Caledonian | May 8, 2007 8:38 AM
Hear! Hear! Well said.
I think we should take all these damn elitists, sterilize them and put them in camps. :)
Posted by: Mike Nilsen | May 8, 2007 8:40 AM
Posted by: Bunjo | May 8, 2007 8:45 AM
The Marching Morons is contrived and paints a reality that could never happen. 200 years ago most people were farmers because it took that many farmers to grow enough food for everyone to survive. How many people today would be considered "moronic farmers" because being a farmer wasn't selected for?
But just as people of reason are selecting mates like them, so are people of unreason. The "problem" isn't that people of unreason are "morons", the problem is that they are using their intelligence to produce and maintain their delusional world view and to force it on everyone else.
I perceive the inability to solve the problems of the world as cultural, not genetic. A "problem" with eugenics is that it would be run by people, and the most powerful selection force would be for gaming that system. Once you put reproductive decisions in the hands of any group, that group becomes infinitely powerful. The first thing that power would be used for is maintaing power.
Posted by: daedalus2u | May 8, 2007 8:47 AM
PZ didn't quote the bit of the editorial that is, IMHO, the most offensive. It follows:
In Kornbluth's story, the people who are actually working -- slaving, really -- to keep society from falling apart altogether are a small group of very bright men and woman who labor in secret. They are horrified by the world of the morons, but they strive valiantly to keep the dumbbells from destroying themselves...Sound familiar?
No, it doesn't sound in the least familiar...at least not as far as the "small group of very bright men and women" goes. Any number of people exist who have little interest in the big picture or much beyond their immediate lives. The current era exactly the same as past eras in this respect. But the secret, selfless cabal of brilliant people working tirelessly and without reward to save the morons? Please. There are any number of people who believe themselves to be part of such a group, but they're really just more of the morons, marching along.
(Disclosure: I've never read TMM and any negative comments on my intelligence level given that I'm critiquing a story I've never read are probably entirely justified...although I would like to point out that I'm really critiquing the editorial, which I have read.)
Posted by: Dianne | May 8, 2007 8:49 AM
If you didn't want that to come up, you should have gotten it right the first time.
Posted by: Caledonian | May 8, 2007 8:53 AM
By an amazing coincidence, I just found a thread about continuing human evolution on RichardDawkins.net which has brought out lots of commenters claiming that stupid people have lots of babies.
I pointed them here.
Posted by: wintermute | May 8, 2007 8:58 AM
PZ,
I think Caledonian cannot accept your refutation of TMM because, you know, he likes calling people morons so much...
Posted by: Arnaud | May 8, 2007 9:00 AM
I both agree AND disagree with this...
the point I'll discuss in the BRIEF time I have this morning is this:
I agree that it isn't all hopeless, that even the sons and daughters of Bush supporters can be educated. The problem though, is that they're born in a society where stupidity is the norm. Educating people who live stupidity as though it were the culture they cling to is difficult. They have no motive to be educated, some actually abhor education, and want to believe whatever their home culture teaches them, be in religious nonsense, that being a good mechanic is better than learning all that highbrow stuff they teach you in school, "we're just plain folk", or the only way to make enough money to get out of the proj is by drugs or rap music. I've heard ALL of that from kids AND parents while I was teaching.
Does that mean we give up? NO! But it means sometimes the ones we save are a lot fewer than the ones who hold tight to ignorance.
I'm afraid I DO believe that there are marching morons. I think the last presidential election was a part of that. I think that the increasing religiosity in the US is part of that, and I think that statistics about the educated vs the uneducated and childbirth rates would confirm this.
Posted by: dorid | May 8, 2007 9:00 AM
Thank you for this post. I come from a working class family as well. My parents didn't have any higher education opportunities. My dad is still functionally illiterate because when he young he convinced himself he'd never be able to read well and no one ever tried to dissuade him from this idea. But he's got the most 'Yankee Ingenuity" of anyone I've ever met. He's built rigs to do things that would normally require three people, using a tractor, some spare wood/metal, and his mind. He built my family's home and has been told that his electrical work is better than contractors by building inspectors. My mom is a wiz with numbers and keeps all the family's money together through an elaborate accounting system. I never had to want for anything because she always saw that all the bills were paid, food put on the table, clothing and extras purchased and still some put away for savings. I'm really lucky to have had such great role models in my life to remind me that just because someone doesn't have an advanced degree doesn't mean they are inherently stupid.
Posted by: Stacey C. | May 8, 2007 9:04 AM
What kind of person thinks that being a good mechanic is less useful than having, let's say, an education degree?
Middle-class morons, mostly.
Posted by: Caledonian | May 8, 2007 9:05 AM
Excellent article! There are many cases in which people have tried to co-opt scientific theories like evolutionary biology into the support of various reactionary political positions. This is nearly always based on misunderstandings of the science involved.
Posted by: Chris Ho-Stuart | May 8, 2007 9:05 AM
PZ said: "Are you staring aghast at the latest cluster of immigrants in this country, are you fretting that they're breeding like rabbits? That generation of children will be the people your kids grow up with, go to school with, date, and marry. It may take a while, but eventually, your line will merge with theirs."
There's an even more immediate and tangible connection. A Monday Wall Street Journal article had this to say, in part:
"One of the challenges is that Americans don't seem to be aware of the vital role the next generation will play. The predominantly white senior citizens and boomers, who account for the majority of the nation's decision makers, often vote against measures to boost services or raise taxes for schools increasingly populated by Hispanics. That's a problem, because better education is the ticket to prosperity for those on whose tax dollars boomers will rely.
"Ron Crouch, director of Kentucky's State Data Center at the University of Louisville, makes about 150 presentations a year to groups including educators, high-tech industry leaders and government officials to paint a picture of what the U.S. will look like as an aging white population converges with a growing population of immigrants and minority youth.
"'If I'm an old white person, I better be interested in how these young, Hispanic kids are doing,' Mr. Crouch told an audience attending the National School Board Association conference in San Francisco last month."
Posted by: Jud | May 8, 2007 9:08 AM
Cal: Mocking people is always arrogant. Don't be a jerk.
Posted by: Chris O. | May 8, 2007 9:14 AM
The idea that imposing social consequences for harboring and spreading stupid ideas is wrong and bad helps dangerous memes to spread.
We need more people who are willing to be "jerks", not fewer.
Posted by: Caledonian | May 8, 2007 9:20 AM
Well, that clears things up nicely. I had apparently been under the false impression that intelligence was an evolved trait with heritable variation that might be subject to natural selection. But if even the evolutionists don't believe that, I guess it's time to go take another look at this "intelligent design" stuff after all! Thanks, PZ!
Posted by: roystgnr | May 8, 2007 9:26 AM
Please, rational people, get past the naive nature vs. nurture argument. Intelligence, it seems to me (and I am a zoologist, not a psychologist) is not a single "trait" like Mendel's purple flowers. If it can be defined at all, it is only as a composite of many, many skills, aptitudes, and abilities, and each of those is both polygenic and (to varying degrees) developmentally plastic. It's complex! It's going to be determined not so much by specific alleles passed from parent to offspring, but more by combinations of various alleles that are always getting scrambled around through sexual recombination, PLUS a nontrivial influence of the developmental environment, both pre-and post-natally.
Posted by: CCP | May 8, 2007 9:36 AM
I think that everyone should read and be tested on
The Genetical theory of Natural Selection.
It's a wonderful illustration of how a mathematician could beautifully restate the basic Natural Selection theory (indeed Fisher's preface begins "Natural Selection is not Evolution."), give it a thorough illustration with those special characters that show true particulate inheritance, and then get swamped in culturally begged questions when he launched into social engineering prescription of encouraging "fertility" in the "better" societies.
Genes flow; nobody has any testable hypothesis for the phenomenon of the Flynn Effect but it's as likely to be more people are getting more school as it is to be gene flow, there's no way to test it; eugenics ( as if all outbreeding in people could be prevented - I love the fond hopes of genetic engineering fans) is line breeding and therefore as likely to fall flat on its face as produce a desired outcome (on any heritable character you care to name - just ask any cattle or dog breeder).
Furthermore, the evidence is clear that Homo sapiens has much less variability than any other species on which comparisons of selectable 'fitness' could be made (for example Pan troglodytes), and so any attempt at line breeding for social excellence or "g" (or whatever you want to typify IQ as this month) is pretty likely to produce a bunch of ethically challenged parasites (qv the British monarchy and peerage) or peter out in the second generation with deleterious homozygous loads.
Moron is as moron does and hubris is everywhere always.
Posted by: Maryanne Elliot | May 8, 2007 9:44 AM
Stabilizing selection! :-)
Posted by: David Marjanović | May 8, 2007 9:45 AM
"I generally figure that environmental factors cause at least 70% of variability in intelligence"
Actually, it is generally accepted in behavioral genetics that 70-80% of the variation in "IQ" is due to genetic factors.
However, one major caveat is that these numbers assume some minimum degree of nurturing has been met. When we start talking about children reared in an abusive environment, or one where their basic nutrient needs aren't met, we can assume that this percentage swings quickly to favor environmental factors.
Posted by: Venyal | May 8, 2007 9:47 AM
In comment #45, roystgnr says:
No; the point is that heritable variation flows through the whole population. You can't single out a class or subgroup that is inferior. Such social are transient and do not represent a long independent lineage, or any genetic superiority. The real genetic variation is between individuals, thoughout society, and it spreads through the whole society as time passes. PZ is not saying there's no variation. He's saying that variation is not lined up neatly along class divisions with "good" on one side and "bad" on the other.
I have confidence that you are intelligent enough to reread his article and confirm this for yourself -- no matter what class you belong to. Education is a valuable thing, for everyone.
Posted by: Chris Ho-Stuart | May 8, 2007 9:49 AM
Cal said:
Well isn't that precious!
Posted by: RickD | May 8, 2007 9:50 AM
We biologists deride the social precept that religious arguments are immune from rational discussion, simply because they are "religious." Yet when we debate the biology of human differences, it is considered off-limits as well to discuss the possibility of inherent differences in intelligence. As a teacher I would like the PC police to achieve Nirvana and have equal opportunities for all children, from conception (protection from smoking, drugs, alcohol)through childhood (nutrition, medical care, stimulation, love, security, and inclusion). The reality is that once this Nirvana is achieved, we will truly live in a eugenic society, a meritocracy based solely on innate genetic abilities since all the environmental variables have been optimized for all. Our social goal should not be to say that everyone has equal potential for "intelligence," but that every child should reach his or her own potential as a human being without being saddled by self-fulfilling prophecies as to what that potential is.
Joeski
Posted by: joeski | May 8, 2007 9:57 AM
Actually, it is generally accepted in behavioral genetics that 70-80% of the variation in "IQ" is due to genetic factors.
Based on what evidence? Not saying that you or behavioral geneticists are wrong, but I'd like more than an appeal to authority before accepting the statement.
Posted by: Dianne | May 8, 2007 9:58 AM
Although anyone quoting TMM as prophesy nowadays needs to be given a wide berth, I tend to give Kornbluth himself a large amount of slack; he grew up in a time and a place of particularly virulent anti-intellectualism.
As for the genes-as-intellectual-destiny argument: I see no reason to believe that intelligence is any more or less determined genetically than other physical abilities such as the ability to run a mile in under four minutes or the ability to maintain a BMI under 25. We seem to be able to accept that those abilities have both genetic and environmental dependencies; why is it that intelligence must be entirely one or the other?
Also, we encourage everyone - even (perhaps especially) fatsos like me (BMI: 38.6) - to get out and exercise even though I could never run a four minute mile with the best training on the planet. Why is it then that knowledge of the inborn components of intelligence is so often coupled with what looks like concern trolling aimed at discouraging those with less innate ability from persuing intellectual tasks?
I'll hazard a guess: intelligence is in the modern world strongly tied to our sense of self-worth, in the way that some people in ages past (and, I suppose, now too) would tie their self-image to their religious identity and specifically to whether they're getting into heaven. Although you'd think that a strong belief in religious predestination would lead to licentious, "anything goes" societies, (given that your destination is already determined) the societies formed by Calvinists are notorious for their strict regulations against actions deemed ungodly, and for their strong "watch thy neighbor" culture. That is, a belief that salvation was innate led to culture in which there was strong pressure to prove that one was one of the elect, and led to seeking out people not of the elect to shame.
Working from the logical implications of their theology, one might offhand think that a society of believers in predestination would be more charitable toward the poor or those of ill repute than a society of strong free-will believers, but somehow that's not the way it worked out in actual human societies.
There was a study which I've heard of only annecdotally, so I'll have to go and track down the source, that looked at the effect on schoolchildren of being told that intelligence was innate, or that it could be changed. First, candidates for the study were assessed as to whether they were already inclined to believe more strongly in the innate nature of intelligence or in its changeable/environmental nature, and the children were split into two groups. Each group then had its own prejudices reinforced. (I think by some authority figure coming in and presenting evidence for that view) Then, the groups were combined, the children were given some sort of general knowledge test, and the tests, with scores, were posted around the room and the children were given a chance to go look at others' tests. The "intelligence is innate" group tended to locate and look at scores lower than their own, and to find answers that they had gotten right but some other kid had gotten wrong. The "intelligence is environmental" group tended to seek out the best scores, and find the answers to questions they had missed.
I, personally, do not care to live in the type of society that human beings seem to form when possessed of a strong conviction of the innateness of whatever determines their self-worth. I see nothing wrong with admitting that some people have to work harder to master certain subjects than others, but I find concern trolling of the "we shouldn't tell children they can be anything" strain odious.
Posted by: Daniel Martin | May 8, 2007 10:00 AM
Which is why his argument is a strawman, since "class" had no part in either the editorial or the story he's decrying.
Posted by: Caledonian | May 8, 2007 10:00 AM
Genes flow; nobody has any testable hypothesis for the phenomenon of the Flynn Effect but it's as likely to be more people are getting more school as it is to be gene flow, there's no way to test it...
No, it's not at all likely to be gene flow.
Posted by: windy | May 8, 2007 10:00 AM
What also gets me is the idea of intelligence. What exactly makes intelligence? In my profession of IT work, I'm proclaimed a genius on a daily basis simply because I have the experience to know a problem because I've seen it before. So not only is that whole 'moron is hereditary' thing stupid, it also assumes that intelligence can be defined by one method.
Hell, I'm the only college graduate in my entire family (not IT) and my family is full of people who graduated high school but work at fairly menial jobs. And despite this, they are excellent troubleshooters. Just because they didn't go to college means they're morons? Nonsense! Their speciality is figuring stuff out by seeing how it works, and I feel glad that I had the upbringing they gave me on top of my college education. It made me a much more rounded person and gave me a second career outside of my college experience.
I guess what I'm saying is the true tragedy of this mindset of 'elites vs. morons' is that it sets up a false dichotomy that wille eventually become one of class warfare not between the rich and everybody else, but of the college educated and everybody else. And not only is that petty, it's dangerous. The last thing America needs now is to declare some sort of war on all education. Who needs an Idiocracy when you have people dismissing all forms of education as some elitist flight of fancy?
Posted by: Zbu | May 8, 2007 10:01 AM
Can we launch Bush into space?
Please?
The truly dangerous people are the exploiters of the mob. The politicians who appeal to people's worst instincts. The fundies who dumb life down and stifle curiosity.
Launch those folks into space.
Posted by: CalGeorge | May 8, 2007 10:04 AM
I've always liked Socrates's take on genetics. The sons of great statesmen, he said, are usually worthless and good for nothing. (Just look at Themistocles and his offspring!)
As for my own illustrious forebears, at least on my mother's side, they came over just after the Mayflower. . . and spent the next three hundred years fleeing to the frontier, farming sand and rocks one county west of the law. Oh yes, and interbreedin' with the natives. The only people who (probably) aren't represented in my family tree are the Jews, and maybe the Vietnamese. (I'm making up for it the best I can: in our modern times, atheism is the new Judaism.)
America, I love yeh.
Posted by: Blake Stacey, OM | May 8, 2007 10:05 AM
In the same vein, it should be remembered that some of us have parents who are creationists.
Posted by: llewelly | May 8, 2007 10:07 AM
And not the mob itself?
Posted by: Caledonian | May 8, 2007 10:09 AM
The more prevalent threat I see is not the breeding, but as depicted in Idiocracy, the development of technology that is very durable, easy to use, and no one has any idea how it works. That, coupled with the demand for technology (iPods, TV/MP3/game phones, etc.) that fulfills the need for CONSTANT ENTERTAINMENT. I don't see the problem as genetic so much as a culture that no longer sees learning and education as important or even necessary.
Posted by: Cappy | May 8, 2007 10:12 AM
Diane,
"Based on what evidence?"
The strongest behavioral genetics evidence comes from adoption and twin studies. Its the only real way that genetics and en