It's The Liberty, Stupid

I suppose it'll please Ross on some level to know that insofar as one is prepared to try to expand the concept of "eugenics" to include a world, like the one depicted in Gattaca, where "there is no state coercion of reproduction or forced sterilizations of minority groups" then, sure, the predominant principles of the mainstream American left favor that sort of thing (Ross suggests that, maybe, we call it "Gattagenics.")

The issue here is precisely that a certain strain of back-in-the-day progressivism was extremely hostile to civil liberties. You saw that in Woodrow Wilson's administration where Attorney-General Palmer led a domestic crackdown that made Al Gonzales and John Ashcroft look like ACLU members. And, indeed, it was former political allies of Wilson's who became horrified by what progressive politics turned into during that period who founded the ACLU (Paul Starr tells this story well in his Freedom's Power). Along the same lines, liberal turned against the eugenicist strain of progressive thought for reasons of individual liberty and autonomy, rightly rejecting the eugenicist movement's vision of society as horribly authoritarian and intrusive.

Flash forward through the decades and what you have are a lot of liberals who, precisely because we, like the opponents of eugenics back in the day, believe in individual liberty in the matter of reproduction, are willing to let individuals freely choose to do certain things that resemble things eugenics proponents may have wanted to force people to do. That coercion or lack thereof, however, is a crucial distinction. In the film Gattaca, meanwhile, they cheat because even though there isn't coercion around reproduction per se, you're watching a movie about a highly illiberal society where people seem to have no privacy rights, etc., and the results naturally raise hackles.

Comments

Along the same lines, liberal turned against the eugenicist strain of progressive thought for reasons of individual liberty and autonomy, rightly rejecting the eugenicist movement's vision of society as horribly authoritarian and intrusive.

Actually, what happened historically was World War II. Eugenics was discredited because it was what the enemy did.

Posted by Pithlord | August 1, 2007 11:02 AM

I have to mildly defend the society of Gattaca - it isn't that illiberal. As far as I remember, everyone is free to refuse to share their DNA (although people cheat and sneak samples for private tests that look a little shady even in the film) it is just that they don't get on the Space Program if they do. Although quite why they need to keep testing and re-testing escapes me. It is not as if exercise changes your DNA.

The problem for eugenics for liberals is surely one of equality. We are all, more or less, in favor of equality, but eugenics, linked with DNA testing and a lot more science, threatens that. It is one thing to be in favor of abortion, it is another to see it being used to abort female fetuses. Now I can see public policy issues in sex selection through abortion. I can see them with tests for blue eyes and blond hair - or intelligence. Does the State have a valid right to intervene here? If so, how does that affect the right to abortion? Is it so hard to imagine rich parents selecting the smartest child they could possibly have? These things do raise hackles even if you live in a liberal society - DNA tests threaten a lot of health insurance for instance if the company is not allowed to test.

Posted by HeiGou | August 1, 2007 11:11 AM

In the film Gattaca, meanwhile, they cheat because even though there isn't coercion around reproduction per se, you're watching a movie about a highly illiberal society where people seem to have no privacy rights, etc., and the results naturally raise hackles.

An argument has to be more than a sort of gumbo stew into which you've thrown the constituent parts. I feel certain that the above is the meat of the argument, but I'm very uncertain as to what it is arguing. Is it that Gattican society isn't liberal, so arguments rooted in it can't be used against liberals? And someone's hackles are raised, but it's not clear whose or to what end.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | August 1, 2007 11:12 AM

Ross has been pretty despicably dishonest throughout this whole affair. His true colors as a Jonah Goldberg/Michelle Malkin wannabe are coming out very clearly in this episode.

Posted by thag | August 1, 2007 11:13 AM

HeiGou, actually, Gattaca depicted a world in which employers weren't actually supposed to be asking for your DNA, but they would do so surreptitiously via a drug test, and most employers would screen-out non-genetically-perfect candidates (which is why ethan hawke's character is depicted as taking a janitorial job in the beginning of the film). Gattaca society fits well into the genre of "corporate dystopia" science fiction films.

DNA tests threaten a lot of health insurance for instance if the company is not allowed to test.

DNA tests threaten insurers if they're not allowed to test and threaten the insured if they are allowed to test. So we are at an impasse. The solution being, of course, to simply replace the insurers with a single-payor who has to provide coverage to everyone, regardless of their DNA tests.

Posted by Tyro | August 1, 2007 11:19 AM

Is it that Gattican society isn't liberal, so arguments rooted in it can't be used against liberals?

I'm pretty sure that's it.

Posted by Ryan | August 1, 2007 11:26 AM

Ross has been pretty despicably dishonest throughout this whole affair

Provided without any example of said dishonesty. Obviously, we need a program to sterilize the mindlessly partisan.

Posted by Pithlord | August 1, 2007 11:27 AM

Posted by Tyro | August 1, 2007 11:19 AM:"Gattaca depicted a world in which employers weren't actually supposed to be asking for your DNA, but they would do so surreptitiously via a drug test"

Sorry but what was the evidence they were not supposed to do so given that Ethan Hawke was repeatedly asked to submit DNA samples? They did not do it surreptitiously as far as I can see but openly.

Posted by Tyro | August 1, 2007 11:19 AM:"and most employers would screen-out non-genetically-perfect candidates (which is why ethan hawke's character is depicted as taking a janitorial job in the beginning of the film)."

Indeed. Although this is surely a consequence of a "liberal" society in the sense of one that allows people freedom

Posted by Tyro | August 1, 2007 11:19 AM:"Gattaca society fits well into the genre of "corporate dystopia" science fiction films."

Indeed. Although the real question which was unanswered was whether it was justifiable for the purposes of the Space Program. Had Ethan Hawke killed his crew because his heart gave out the film would have had a very different ending.

Posted by Tyro | August 1, 2007 11:19 AM:"DNA tests threaten insurers if they're not allowed to test and threaten the insured if they are allowed to test. So we are at an impasse."

Well no. The problem is asymmetric information. If I know I am going to develop diabetes and so does my insurer, there is no problem. A market can exist and a price will be found. If *I* know and *they* are not allowed to, then there will be a market failure.

Posted by Tyro | August 1, 2007 11:19 AM:"The solution being, of course, to simply replace the insurers with a single-payor who has to provide coverage to everyone, regardless of their DNA tests."

Most Western States, especially in Europe, even now openly tell parents to abort fetuses with Down's Syndrome. They have a good reason to do so because those babies cost the State. I think this is a reason to be cautious of single payer systems especially as DNA could, theoretically, give the State so many more reasons not to want some babies born.

Posted by HeiGou | August 1, 2007 11:28 AM

I suppose it'll please Ross on some level to know that insofar as one is prepared to try to expand the concept of "eugenics" to include a world, like the one depicted in Gattaca, where "there is no state coercion of reproduction or forced sterilizations of minority groups" then, sure, the predominant principles of the mainstream American left favor that sort of thing

Woah. Am I reading this incorrectly or are you saying that the predominant principles of the mainstream American left favour the sort of society portrayed in Gattaca? Because that's just crazy. If there's any common thread between the strands of American leftism its that inherited privilege or disadvantage shouldn't determine one's outcome in life. Which is pretty much the polar opposite of what happens in Gattacan society. Gattaca's closest parallel isn't to be found in American leftism but in the "meritocratic" society satirised by Michael Young and more or less favoured by Tony Blair.

Posted by Ginger Yellow | August 1, 2007 11:35 AM

Well, I think the model in Gattaca was pretty coercive, due to the genetic discrimination that was rampant.

I don't think it takes a genetically-enhanced individual to realize there's a world of difference between a parent wanting his children to be as healthy as possible and an employer deciding what opportunities should be available to an individual on the basis of genetics.

If there was gene therapy that could be performed on a fetus to eliminate severe genetic disabilities, I think the vast majority of people would choose to do it. Obviously, it gets into complicated areas of where one draws the line -- like, altering the color of your child's eyes, etc -- but few people would choose to let their children have Down Syndrome if there were a safe and easy way to fix the problem.

Posted by Royko | August 1, 2007 11:42 AM

Well no. The problem is asymmetric information. If I know I am going to develop diabetes and so does my insurer, there is no problem.

Unless of course you can't afford that price, and just get to die from your condition because you can't pay for treatment. That might be, you know, a bit of a problem.

Posted by Phaedrus | August 1, 2007 11:42 AM

Sorry but what was the evidence they were not supposed to do so given that Ethan Hawke was repeatedly asked to submit DNA samples?

The evidence? The script is the evidence. I clearly remember the script much better than you:

http://www.imsdb.com/scripts/Gattaca.html

Of course, it's illegal to discriminate - "genoism" it's called - but no one takes the laws seriously. ... If you refuse to disclose, they can always take a sample from a doorhandle... And if all else fails, a legal drug test can just as easily become an illegal peek at your future in the company.

If this were merely the first time you were mistaken about something, I wouldn't think anything of it, but for you, it's part of an ongoing, consistent pattern.

Although this is surely a consequence of a "liberal" society in the sense of one that allows people freedom

In the libertarian sense, sure.

Posted by Tyro | August 1, 2007 11:45 AM

Posted by Royko | August 1, 2007 11:42 AM:"Well, I think the model in Gattaca was pretty coercive, due to the genetic discrimination that was rampant."

I don't see what is coercive about allowing people freedom to make hiring and firing decisions based on the knowledge available to them.

Posted by Royko | August 1, 2007 11:42 AM:"I don't think it takes a genetically-enhanced individual to realize there's a world of difference between a parent wanting his children to be as healthy as possible and an employer deciding what opportunities should be available to an individual on the basis of genetics."

Sorry but what is the world of difference? A parent may choose not to allow a baby to be born. An employer may choose not to offer candidate A a job. If based on genetic information they look very similar decisions to me.

Posted by Phaedrus | August 1, 2007 11:42 AM:"Unless of course you can't afford that price, and just get to die from your condition because you can't pay for treatment. That might be, you know, a bit of a problem."

Well a problem for me, not for the market, the insurance company, or society as a whole. As such. If I am allowed to know things and the insurance company is not, the market will collapse. This is why you have to declare pre-existing conditions in the US. Suppose that medical companies were not allowed to ask if you had HIV or not, nor were you required to disclose it. Potentially you could cost them millions. So the sensible thing to do is hike the fees as if you had HIV. But if you don't, then the costs you are expecting and probably much lower than that. Why would you pay it? Market collapses.

Posted by HeiGou | August 1, 2007 11:50 AM

Re: "Most Western States, especially in Europe, even now openly tell parents to abort fetuses with Down's Syndrome. They have a good reason to do so because those babies cost the State. I think this is a reason to be cautious of single payer systems especially as DNA could, theoretically, give the State so many more reasons not to want some babies born."

Why this conclusion? Aborting these babies is obviously the right thing to do, so if a single payer system makes this more likely, then this should be an argument in its favor.

Posted by Jim W | August 1, 2007 12:06 PM

If I am allowed to know things and the insurance company is not, the market will collapse.

Oh, I agree with this. But since I support single-payer health care, I consider the collapse of private insurance a feature, not a bug.

Posted by Phaedrus | August 1, 2007 12:13 PM

In Gattaca, no, they don't force the abortion of babies who aren't genetically "pure". But there exists a caste system through which people who don't past genetic muster are second class citizens. So it's coercive in its own way. If Ross can find a liberal commentator who's advocating a society like that in Gattaca I'll eat my mouse pad.

Posted by Freddie | August 1, 2007 12:17 PM

Sorry for the two comments where one should have been enough, but I also need to reply to this:

Well a problem for me, not for the market, the insurance company, or society as a whole.

Not everyone being able to afford a Lexus, that's not a problem for society. People dying because they can't afford health care on the other hand, is something I certainly consider a societal problem.

Posted by Phaedrus | August 1, 2007 12:18 PM

As I've said before, including on Mr. D's site, if you want to reduce or eliminate abortions because of fetal abnormalities, cure the abnormalities. At least make it easier to care for a disabled kid. At the moment, it's a choice for the non-wealthy among us between unending stress and near-poverty while caring for the child or having an abortion.

Also, I'd like to point out that this is a small number of the total abortions, and a group of privileged parents. Prenatal testing is expensive and therefore unavailable to the uninsured. Thus, the parents in a position to abort a defective fetus are a rather privileged group. It's also likely that these are desired pregnancies because they've continued into the period where amnio can detect chromosomal problems. Doesn't that mean that this is a group who would continue the pregnancies if treatment were available? So, make it available. I know we're a long way from that with Down, but it's not impossible. In the meantime, create institutions where parents can obtain help for themselves and their disabled children, and eliminate the stigma for giving up disabled babies for adoption by, among other things, adopting those handicapped kid who are already born. Of course, it's a lot more fun to call parents facing this horrible dilemma Nazis.

Posted by Karen | August 1, 2007 12:28 PM

The semantic dispute about whether selective abortion counts as "eugenics" is a total red herring. The issue is whether people think a future U.S. where unrestricted abortion is used to weed out children with genetic characteristics perceived to be undesireable (e.g., low IQ, cosmetic deformities, homosexuality, even potentially sex) raises moral concerns. It's possible that someone whose basic moral intuition is that unrestricted abortion is a non-problematic exercise of personal autonomy might feel uneasy when confronted with this possible future. It's also possible that examining why he or she feels uneasy about that could tend to undermine the basic moral intuition. I think that is what pro-life people like Douthat are after.

Posted by Led | August 1, 2007 12:50 PM

Its the selection that makes many people uneasy about these cases, not the abortion. One could imagine forms of birth control that weed out undesirable genetic traits, and this would also make people uneasy.

Posted by Jim W | August 1, 2007 12:57 PM

What's objectionable about selection by parents? It's an individual choice about an intensely private matter that does not invade anyone else's rights.

Posted by henry evans | August 1, 2007 1:02 PM

Its the "tragedy of the commons" problem. Its possible that individuals may select for things that are good for themselves or their children, but bad for the common good. An example is selection for sex. If 80% of parents decide they all want boys (or girls, for that matter), the resulting imbalance in sexes will be problematic.

This is actually happening to a certain extent in India and China right now, with many girls being aborted.

Posted by Jim W | August 1, 2007 1:29 PM

That's not really a moral objection to selection. It's an objection to a potential practical consequence. And it does not explain unease about selection accomplished via abortion for lots of other traits (like eye or hair color).

Posted by henry evans | August 1, 2007 1:48 PM

No state coercion in Gattaca? Did we watch the same movie.

In Gattaca everything was determined by a person's genetic makeup. Thus the term "invalid" which pops up every time a genetic sample is taken. And the presumption of guilt based on the fact that an "invalid" had once been on the floor where someone was murdered - despite the fact that the entire janitorial staff is made up of invalids.

Posted by Jinchi | August 1, 2007 2:09 PM

And it does not explain unease about selection accomplished via abortion for lots of other traits (like eye or hair color).

The unease is easily explained by the unease with the purported particulars of the action (as opposed to the right to the action itself).

If a major klan rally (or somesuch) were taking place down the street, I'd be experiencing this "moral unease;" it would really bother me that many people felt and acted in that way. It would not, however, make me feel uneasy about the general principle of freedom of speech, sending me scampering for the comforts of state-sanctioned speech.

Similarly, if a friend of mine pulled me over and said:

"You know, Mrs. Straw and I have been trying to have children for a while, and we desperately want one. But, see, we've had four abortions now because all of her pregnancies were girls. Oh, except for the one boy, but he had brown eyes, not blue, so we terminated that one as well. "

then I, for all my liberalness, would be apalled. I'd be apalled not b/c abortion seems wrong to me on its face, but because of the nasty and shortsighted views being expressed, which a) would be amazingly sexist in "girls" case or b) pitifully, ridiculously shallow (and self-centered or something) in the "eye" case.

The fact that people have the right to do a large number of things we might find morally disagreeable is simply a result in believing in a robust set of rights; it does not deprive us of the ability to make our own moral judgements about the actions of individuals.

Posted by Brad L | August 1, 2007 2:20 PM

I think that's right. Abortion doesn't fall into a unique category. Like other actions its moral status depends on the reason why it's done.

Posted by henry evans | August 1, 2007 2:38 PM

I'd be apalled not b/c abortion seems wrong to me on its face, but because of the nasty and shortsighted views being expressed

Do you feel the same level of moral unease about a guy in a bar saying that men are more valuable to society than women as about a couple who aborts a girl fetus because they want a boy baby?

Posted by Led | August 1, 2007 3:35 PM

The distinction MY makes approximates the standard one between postive & negaitve eugenics. The liberal left has opposed both since the roughly the 1930s, on equality as well as liberty grounds. This is an important enough issue for MY to learn the history before making sweeping, half-informed judgments.

Posted by KH | August 1, 2007 3:52 PM

Sigh.

As usual, Ross has no idea what he is talking about.

Eugenics was a widespread phenomenon throughout the Western world from the dawn of the Darwinian age through to World War II. As a previous commentator pointed out, eugenics as a whole was discredited due to Nazi eugenic programs in World War II and abuses in democratic societies like the Tuskeegee program in the US.

However, eugenic ideas inspired a number of other things, from birth control to maternity leave to welfare.

Eugenics' legacy is complicated. You can read all about in Daniel Kevles' excellent book, "In the Name of Eugenics". Susan Pedersen's "Family, Dependence and the Origins of the Welfare State" has some interesting stuff on eugenics as well.

I read both for my quals, and they were good reads as well as informative.

Posted by dadanarchist | August 1, 2007 4:01 PM

Is Matthew arguing that the Wilson administration was progressive? Because Wilson won the 1912 election by beating Teddy Roosevelt, who was the candidate for the Progressive Party. So the Wilson administration is no benchmark for what is and isn't progressive.

Posted by Scott P. | August 1, 2007 4:05 PM

Do you feel the same level of moral unease about a guy in a bar saying that men are more valuable to society than women as about a couple who aborts a girl fetus because they want a boy baby?

Fair question. I'll try to answer it as well as possible, given the restriction that "feelings of moral unease" are fairly difficult to quantify, expecially in a hypothetical sense, and that there is an inevitable overlap between that and "personal disgust."

I would feel more uncomfortable with the couple in your example than the bar patrons, largely because one represents a morally uncomfortable discussion, while another represents a morally uncomfortable action. It seems worse to hear someone say "I aborted a female fetus because women are inferior to men" than it is to simply hear "I think women are inferior to men."

Presumably, the more and varied ways that Hypothetical Joe and Jane act on this belief (refusing to choose a woman doctor, giving money to organizations that promote the idea of putting women back in the kitchen, aborting a female fetus), the greater "moral unease" I would feel; that is, the more I would understand them to be committed to and active in a belief that I find morally repugnant.

None of this means, however, that I think that those acts dictate that we should limit speech, limit an individual's right to choose who to buy services from, or limit the right to give money to groups that I might not like, even though each of those particular actions might have incrementally increased my personal revulsion at, and general discomfort with, these people.

Posted by Brad L | August 1, 2007 4:28 PM

Rather than argue about a rather dull, silly movie, let me point out that we are already into an age of what I call "free market eugenics." For example, consider the market price for human eggs. High IQ Ivy League coeds' can get a lot more money for their eggs than can community college coeds. Similarly, Denmark is a major exporter of frozen semen because of the global demand for blonde genes.

Selective abortion for Downs' Syndrome in America and for femaleness in Asia is common, with selective abortion for hereditary diseases like Huntington's rare but hardly unknown.

The most successful current eugenics system is the one that has radically cut the incidence of Tay-Sachs disease among the children of highly Orthodox Jews. However, traditional eugenics programs like this require arranged marriages (as the Catholic writer G.K. Chesterton pointed out in his 1922 book "Eugenics and Other Evils"), so this kind of thing won't expand much in the West until sophisticated genetic testing for things like IQ and/or genetic engineering becomes practicable, which they currently aren't, with only rare exceptions.

Technological breakthroughs, however, are coming -- perhaps not as quickly as often forecast, but they are coming. Will mass free market eugenics be good for the human race?

I don't think we have a clue at this point, which worries me. The good news is that we have time to intelligently forecast the impact on societies in the future of altering gene frequencies by looking honestly at the impact on societies today of natural genetic diversity among humans. However, political correctness badly hampers such research, so we will likely blunder blindly into the free market eugenic future.

Contra Matt, liberals don't have a broad devotion to liberty, damn the consequences. For example, they support massive government interference in private liberties in health care, the environment, and employment decisions because they think the benefits outweigh the costs.

However, liberals or progressive or whatever the term of the moment is, aren't doing a good job at all thinking about the consequences of free market eugenics for several reasons. The first is their devotion to abortion. They really, really hate discussing anything that raises public qualms about abortion, such as partial-birth abortions or eugenic abortions.

Another is feminist and lesbian rights -- lesbian feminists are particularly enthusiastic comparison shoppers in the sperm bank free market. For example, feminist heroine Jody Foster spent months searching out the perfect sperm donor for her baby -- a tall, handsome scientist with a 160 IQ.

Third, political correctness. Talking about this in public opens up the huge can of worms about forbidden topics like IQ, heredity, sex differences, and race. Obviously, Jody Foster acts as if she believes The Bell Curve that IQ is important and highly heritable, as do most other liberals when it comes to themselves and their offspring, just as their vaunted enthusiasm for diversity suddenly evaporates when choosing a school for their own children!

So, we're just going to stumble into the era of free market eugenics with almost no honest thought about what it all might mean for the future of the human race.

Posted by Steve Sailer | August 1, 2007 4:49 PM

Posted by Tyro | August 1, 2007 11:45 AM:"The evidence? The script is the evidence. I clearly remember the script much better than you"

OK. I'll grant you that. My wrong.

Posted by Jim W | August 1, 2007 12:06 PM :"Why this conclusion? Aborting these babies is obviously the right thing to do, so if a single payer system makes this more likely, then this should be an argument in its favor."

I do not see it is the right thing to do much less that it is obvious that it is. Every life has value and I can introduce you to some parents of Down's children who think so. The problem here is that parents may waver and the doctor's intervention may tip the balance in a way that they may deeply regret later. The State should not intervene in this way.

Posted by henry evans | August 1, 2007 1:02 PM:"What's objectionable about selection by parents? It's an individual choice about an intensely private matter that does not invade anyone else's rights."

It is hard to think of a more radical change to society than widespread sex selection. Societies with 10 percent fewer women than men are not just like Rhode Island but with more complex domestic arrangements. Every single aspect of life is changed - and such societies tend to be highly autocratic for a start. A more obvious public good I would find it hard to think of.

Posted by Jinchi | August 1, 2007 2:09 PM:"No state coercion in Gattaca? Did we watch the same movie."

Where was the coercion by the state in Gattaca?

Posted by Jinchi | August 1, 2007 2:09 PM:"In Gattaca everything was determined by a person's genetic makeup. Thus the term "invalid" which pops up every time a genetic sample is taken. And the presumption of guilt based on the fact that an "invalid" had once been on the floor where someone was murdered - despite the fact that the entire janitorial staff is made up of invalids."

Actually very little was determined by a person's genetic make up in Gattaca - except, of course, for all the things that Ethan Hawke wanted. The State did not prevent him being born for instance. The State did not deny him anything that I recall. A company connected with the Space program, which may have been State-run, denied him a place on the Space program - but then was that irrational? The film ends too soon to be sure. I suppose that we are to assume that he comes back in triumph and marries the girl. OK. Fine. That means the science is garbage. But what if it is not and he kills himself and his entire crew? Wasn't that discrimination right? NASA does not, after all, let people with weak hearts fly. Is that unfair discrimination?

The presumption of guilt is in the minds of the police investigation - not the Courts. So it is not a real presumption of guilt.

Posted by HeiGou | August 2, 2007 5:53 AM

Posted by Steve Sailer | August 1, 2007 4:49 PM:"The most successful current eugenics system is the one that has radically cut the incidence of Tay-Sachs disease among the children of highly Orthodox Jews."

Actually that is not a eugenics program. It is a dysgenics system. It is greatly cutting the rate of Tay-Sachs in the Orthodox Jewish community but at the expense of greatly increasing the rate at which the genes for it occur. Rabbi Joseph Ekstein is a hero of mine, and his work has reduced human suffering enormously, but he is doing nothing whatsoever to reduce the frequency of the Tay-Sachs gene in the population. To put it brutally, in the past two carriers of the gene would often meet and marry and have few surviving children if any. Now if they meet, they do not marry, but rather marry someone else and so have many surviving children. The gene is no longer being eliminated from the gene pool.

Posted by HeiGou | August 2, 2007 6:05 AM