On the Differences between People, Birds, and Bees

by Christopher Michael Langan

To the vast majority of us, the world is an inhospitable place. Life on

earth is problematic, and human beings are not always up to solving its
problems. Mankind can address this situation either by modifying the
earth and blunting its hazards, by modifying himself so as to sidestep
some of these hazards, or by elevating his problem-solving ability so that
hazards can be predicted and finessed with minimal environmental
tampering. As matters now stand, most such tampering - while often
displaying sound logic from an extremely local vantage - is, in the wider
sense, ecologically ill-conceived and ill-coordinated with other such
efforts. That is, the problem of improving the lot of mankind and its
companion lifeforms on earth does not admit of localistic solution: the
problem does not break down into separate, parallel-soluble subproblems.
Yet, in the name of "patriotism", "nationalism", "the right of peoples to
self-determination", and other such anachronisms and oxymorons,
globalistic solutative programs cannot be implemented. Nor, for that
matter, has the problem of optimizing the human condition ever been
coherently formulated; utilitarianism, communism, anarchism, and other
such schemes are logically or socio-psychologically unsound or obsolete,
and even democracy displays a range of inconsistencies. Nonetheless, man
demonstrates a chronic need to wreak havoc, within and without his own
kind, in internecine disputes over creeds and administrative algorithms he
lacks the intelligence to evaluate. So well able to focus his mind on
concise, locally-circumscribed problems, his intellect breaks apart into
quibbling pieces when the content is enlarged beyond his ability to
reason. At this point, he either fights, flees, or defers sullenly to others
whose authority supposedly devolves to a superior ability to create and
implement solutions to his problems ...that is, to higher intelligence.

Of course, while governments are often assumed to possess collective

intelligence greater than that of the governed, they more often claim to
derive their mandates from "the will of the people" - which, again, need
not be a will governed by any concerted intelligence. At the bottom limit,
governments are composed of brutal tyrants who rule by force and for the
good of themselves only. Challenged from without, they uniformly
broadcast a tired refrain of national sanctity which, because it harmonizes
all too well with the self-justifications and ulterior motives of so many
other governments, usually plays well enough. The situation is
unconscionable, not only because it offends sensibilities, but because it is
in no way consistent with any valid algorithm for world optimization.
In fact. it is demonstrably anti-solutative in the computation-theoretic
sense, and the need to change it is unequivocal. But change will not come
until men possess the intelligence to recognize their need...or until that
need has smashed their baseless pride and spurious independence with
hammers of catastrophe. Those hammers are ever gaining deadly mass in
the form of overpopulation and its attending ills, the depletion of
nonrenewable resources, environmental degradation, and an increasing
ability to intentionally harm and destroy.
There are several obvious ways to deal with this. We might launch a
new science of human intelligence whereby to upgrade and configure the
components of the advanced human computer which must out-think the
problems attending its increasing density upon a finite, overburdened
substrate. Using related knowledge, we might design an artificial intellect
to do this in our default. We might simply glean the best and brightest
humans who currently exist, and try somehow to repose authority with
them. Or, we could apply all these strategies at once, hoping for a lucky
synergy among them. In any case, we require developmental formalisms
superior to any currently in wide use (such formalisms exist already, and
they boil down to the same essential conceptual systems).
Certain priorities tend to favor some of these strategies over others.
Individual freedom, even distribution of power, and technological
advancement appear to favor those involving the overall enhancement of
human intelligence. This raises the following question: what is now being
done to upgrade the intellectual potential of mankind? In most places,
children are taught by rote and explanation, but not how to think; they
are merely congratulated when they happen to show sparks of originality.
In other places - especially in urban public schools - those of low

motivation and ability are all but granted criminal dominance over other
students, and even over faculty. From the computative angle, this is like
trying to build a supercomputer by cranking out and parallelizing vast
numbers of low-grade packet calculators.
In the same spirit, there has arisen a ludicrous tendency to vitiate the
concept of intellectual distinctions by, for instance, pronouncing street
rap a valid replacement for the technologically sufficient language from
which it degenerated. One who thinks in street rap may be potentially as
intelligent as another who thinks less constrictedly, but he is not
functionally as intelligent, and will not fulfill his potential without
remedial education. Main-streaming such students is a disservice not only
to them, but to those better equipped to handle advanced abstractions.
Moreover, simple principles of computation indicate that not all
human brains are equal in potential. This may be a bitter pill for
sociologists and anthropologists to swallow, since so many have become
apologists for the hubris of modern, technologically-advanced cultures.
But the size and internal structure of computative devices - neural as well
as digital - bear heavily on power and efficiency, particularly in the limit.
This is a fact which takes precedence over the media-propagated paranoia
concerning certain "eugenic" atrocities of the mid-20th century...a little
like the paralyzing fear of an agoraphobe in a burning house. The
potential for abuse, being ubiquitous, does not constitute a rational
argument against otherwise desirable changes.
Any species which has stripped and modified the context of its
evolution bears a responsibility to control its further evolution, insofar as
the latter is necessitated by the inability of that species to coordinate its
activities in ways consistent with its survival. There is already enough data
to establish a correlation between genes and intelligence; all that we need
now is a refined knowledge of how to optimize brain structure through
genetics and early programming without compromising other gene- and
program-dependent aspects of individuality, viability and happiness (we
need not presuppose a single gene or gene-set coding for high
intelligence, which may be a matter of various more or less complex
genetic combinations expressed in specific biochemical and otherparametrised environments during pre- and post-natal development).
A bit more on nature versus nurture in the cultivation of intelligence.
Many people, in choosing mates, believe themselves motivated by the

physical, emotional, and intellectual welfare of their future progeny. A

cursory glance, however, reveals that most of these "gene-conscious"
parents lack the data and intellectual power to successfully evaluate such
matters...particularly the actual intelligence of their mates. For instance,
despite the obvious abundance of wealthy mediocrities, it is easy to
observe a widespread tendency to equate intellectual and financial assets.
Sadly, that may be the only way that some people can put any value at all
on intelligence. This shameful illusion is fostered by the all too frequent
translation of money into social and political power, and by the absurd
confidence of many successful businessmen in their dubious abilities to
solve whatever problems they might later encounter as public servants.
A good deal of recent anthropological and sociobiological evidence
suggests interesting, but disturbing, parallels between humans and more
primitive species in terms of reproductive strategy. Primitive strategies
may be acceptable in primitive species still subject to something vaguely
approaching natural selection. Having suspended this with respect to
ourselves, however, mimicking the reproductive behavior of insects, birds,
and apes is - as well as being somewhat beneath us - simply not feasible.
We have created a world in which intelligence is a necessity, and done so
at a far greater pace than unassisted nature can duplicate, we have
changed the rules of the game, and new games require new strategies. If
men and women cannot change their strategies to fit their notions of
family, love, and romance, they may have to change their feelings to suit
their needs.
A strong case can be made that mankind's current path is dysgenic,
particularly given the rather meretricious (or absent) reproductive
priorities of the many. As strong a case exists that little time may remain
before Malthusian pressures lead everywhere to the same changes already
forced on overpopulated mainland China. Still another important point is
that natural selection no longer prevents the physical and mental
deterioration of our species by an accelerating accumulation of genetic
defects. Compassion alone dictates the right of children to be born free of
such defects, regardless of how little their parents may care to grant it.
And what constitutes a "defect" may well depend on the rising level of
complexity permeating a child's environment.
One is tempted to cite as counterexamples to the thesis of "reverse
evolution" the many brilliant scientists and technicians now living on
earth. One must further observe that there are many good-hearted people

who do not rate as rocket scientists, and who in fact are congenitally
defective relative to all reasonable standards of physical and mental
fitness. One can even surmise that nothing short of mandatary
sterilization could stop the vast majority of "suboptimal" breeders from
continuing to create progeny who share their nonbeneficial
characteristics. Indeed, it is difficult to argue with the truth in point of
content. But to what extent do such truths militate against the desirability
of some form of eugenics? Quite simply, they do not.
It is inarguable that certain plausible sets of assumptions about who we
are and what we want imply the desirability of enlightened supervision
over human genetic recombination and manipulation, while many of our
problems undoubtedly come down to a nonintellectual clash of wills, a
great many can be shown to result from a shortage of intellect among
those empowered to make decisions on behalf of themselves and the rest
of us, and of those officials and constituents who encourage shortsightedness by their implacable insistence on fast, specious solutions to
problems whose full extents they are unable to fathom. Concisely, the
decisions relegated to such people must be limited to those for which they
are mentally equipped. But this implies the redistribution of power on the
basis of intelligence, and thus a choice between eugenics on one hand and
intellectual or electronic authoritarianism or elitism on the other.
Since the priorities of the many must often be computed ad hoc
according to local criteria, civic responsibility can be defined only relative
to some measure of computational ability. The capacity to transcend one's
own situation and make decisions of societal as well as individual benefit
thus involves intelligence. Intelligence cannot preclude evil, but can
reduce its ability to take root and flourish. Democracy, in entrusting the
common good to an enlightened majority, depends on the intelligence of
all.
Consider the general requirements of democratic political systems. It is
apparent that the efficiency of a democracy relies on the mental abilities
of citizens to evaluate issues and candidates not only with respect to
momentary personal advantage, but in light of global parameters; and
that as population density rises and technology advances, these
parameters become more numerous and interact with increasing
complexity. The average citizen is already swamped with data he is
powerless to integrate; consequently, he tends towards apathy, blatant
self-interest, or gullibility, all of which compromise efficiency. Democracy

and personal freedom worked well when a sparser population interfered

less with itself and when issues were simpler. But as the world has
evolved, the power of men to compute necessary decisions has not kept
pace. Evidence of this is abundant; one cannot argue that the flaw resides
exclusively in the system, for systems consist of, and are limited by, their
components.
Governments "by the people" can be modeled as networks of human
brains. Such "meta-nets" have interesting properties. But any network can
be computationally overloaded by input of sufficient complexity. Even if a
meta-net can change its overall configuration to accelerate solution, it is
limited by the power of its individual sub-nets. The main question here is,
has this limit been approached or exceeded by existing social problems?
The answer is yes, partly because many of the problems we face can be
arbitrarily complexified by temporal extension. That is, just as a chess
player telescopes his reasoning by predicating future moves on the future
moves immediately preceding them, every solution we calculate becomes
a condition of subsequent problems.
That pure laissez-faire democracy is inherently flawed follows from
advanced logic. Nations have chosen democracy because it best conduces
to personal freedom; all the alternatives exact what was considered too
high a price tor whatever advantages they entailed. But the equationstring, freedom = responsibility = intelligence, is symmetric and transitive
in today's world. To remove one term is to remove them all...and tyranny
abhors a political vacuum.
To ensure the viability of a democracy, we must ensure the intelligence
of the individuals comprising it. But this is a task beyond the reach of
those by whose incompetence the system falters. Because we are not
assured that the distributive majority of human beings have the capacity
and motivation to learn how to think on the appropriate level of
complexity, the correlation of genes and intelligence encourages either
that a eugenics program be designed and administered by those of highest
expertise, or that we develop a taste for societal deterioration and loss of
freedom.
The fact is, freedom is conserved under changes in population density.
More people means less of it. Accordingly, freedom of one kind can often
be purchased only at the cost of another. These lessons have a
mathematical certainty that is lost on most unintelligent people, and even

on some who consider themselves mentally superior. Unfortunately,

reality seldom yields to the convenience of those who choose to ignore
it...and reality seems to dictate the formulation and implementation of
certain judgments concerning just what attributes should be preserved
under population reduction or favored under stasis. One such attribute
will obviously be high intelligence.
This subject is a dependable trigger for hysteria. There are many
"leaders" who consider eugenics synonymous with "racism",
"discrimination", and even "genocide". Such ploys often work, and largely
by virtue of the intellectual limitations of audiences and journalists. Even
though such hysteria thus militates in favor of its apparent cause, few
people have the courage to challenge it. But there is as little time for
humoring the timorous as for mollifying the hysterical; ignoring the issue
is unlikely to make it go away. There are those who believe that
irresponsible breeding practices, and the stupidity which fosters them,
cannot be stemmed without damage to our freedom. But freedom, and
much else as well, cannot tolerate the geometric prolificacy of stupidity.
There is a widespread tendency, at any mention of this topic, to recall
certain "lessons of history" involving practices endemic to
wartime Germany. However, the philosophy behind such practices,
Nietzsche s heroic version of existentialism, had an explicitly brutal
aspect; with a pronounced xenophobic twist, it advocated domination of
the weak by the strong. Had compassion not been anathema to the nazi
creed, abuses could not have existed on so monstrous a scale. Obviously,
the mistakes of the past need not be repeated. Compassion is perhaps the
most important ingredient in any effort to improve the human species,
especially with regard to humans yet unborn...each of whom would
presumably wish to enter life with a complete physical, sensory, and
mental apparatus.
Bearing this in mind, consider the emergency use of mandatory
sterilization. Rights may be distinguished from privileges by the degree to
which certain kinds of behavior restrict or interfere with the prerogatives
of others. If you want to shout sedition from the rooftops, the first
amendment grants you that right on the supposition that no one else
need take you to heart (a risky assumption in societies where not
everyone is mentally able to perceive the possible inconsistencies in your
speech). If you want to convoke a coven of witches at midnight under a
full moon, you are granted that right by virtue of the fact that no one need

come who wishes not to. By this criterion, breeding is anything but a
right; it cannot be done without affecting the child, and all who - directly
or indirectly - must subsidize its life in the event of disability. At the
extreme, witness the deplorable example of babies born to drug-addicted
mothers: they are prey to every ill that can rack their pitiful brains and
bodies. Yet, such mothers - who have demonstrated a medical condition
rendering them unfit to bear children - are treated as though tubal
ligation amounted to death at the stake. The only argument in favor of the
status quo relies on "conventional attitudes" towards childbearing,
attitudes which have outlived the world which created them. With the
advent of long-lasting, injectable contraceptives, such conventions will
carry even less force than they do now.
Let us extend the theme. There is a modern tendency to claim that
blindness, deafness, and other handicaps leave one able to experience and
contribute to life as fully as anyone else, and that no one is morally fit to
argue otherwise who does not share the handicap in question. This
position was originally crafted to soften prejudice and bolster the selfesteem of the afflicted. But it has since been taken to imply that, where
the condition is congenital, society has no business restraining those
afflicted from passing it on to whatever progeny they might choose to
have.
Fitness, the line goes, is a relative concept, subject to variations due to
racial, cultural, religious, and personal criteria. Yet, global society is
proceeding in a direction to which such criteria may be irrelevant or
inimical. It thus makes little sense to adopt a deceptive tolerance which
will not be shared by the world our descendants must inhabit. The
mankind of tomorrow may not be disposed to forgive those whose
passivity and self-indulgence saddled them with infirmities, for many of
them may find that tomorrow's world does not always pardon the infirm.
Evidence is accumulating that certain psychological and behavioral
tendencies are at least partially under genetic control: e.g., schizophrenia,
substance dependency, and extreme aggression and antisocial behavior
(violent criminality). Care must be taken to ensure that attempts to
suppress such liabilities do not interfere with crucial components of
genius. For example, in approaching great tasks or solving large and
extremely difficult problems, something very like controlled aggression is
often required; and certain more or less exotic mental processes, such as
those involved in artistic creation, are somewhat dissociative. While it

may never be possible to engineer genius to order, the genetic alchemy

through which it emerges must be given a chance. Fortunately, such
precautions are not incompatible with a substantial rise in average human
intelligence.
Eugenics is often thought of as predicated on arbitrary standards of
desirability or attractiveness. The question is then asked, who will decide
what constitutes desirability? Yet, it is relatively easy to develop statistical
profiles, given any set of restrictions on the sample, that would relieve any
one person of such a responsibility. For example, where the vast majority
of people perceive a given facial characteristic as grotesque, it could be
rated a "defect" on the grounds that those having it could not escape
frequent ostracism or pity on account of it. If it serves (or is inextricably
linked with) no beneficial function, it could then be eliminated from the
genome regardless of who claims a proprietary interest in its
perpetuation. The matter of intelligence, even in this anti-testing climate,
is clearer still.
Many people have been taught to view statistical reasoning with
suspicion, particularly when applied to social minorities. Indeed,
statistical formulae lack absolute force with respect to single individuals,
who may be exceptions to the rule. Any general set of eugenic guidelines
will inevitably affect different groups in different ways and to differing
extents. But even though evaluating cases on an individual basis ensures
the fair application of such guidelines, certain groups might perceive
themselves as unfairly threatened. If necessary, eugenics could be pursued
within such groups according to special guidelines, in the expectation that
the intelligence thereby gained will illuminate the need for submission to
more general criteria. In any case, the need for genetic variability means
that humans will continue to occupy a wide variety of shapes and styles.
Man's need to evolve still exists. The only way for civilization to evade
it is by resorting to methods, which even now would seem pointless and
Orwellian, whereby to forestall its collapse given the present low level of
common intelligence among its members. In all likelihood, therefore,
eugenics will prevail. But whether soon enough, and whether voluntarily
or not, remains to be seen. Little enough already remains of the ecological
majesty that was once the earth; mankind has too long traded the role of
shepherd for that of parasite. Yet, to be a fit shepherd for the lesser of the
earth, man must learn to be a shepherd unto himself.

It is easy for the "highly gifted" to remain aloof from such questions,
either by ignoring them or by hiding within ethical structures too weak to
bear the weight of correct answers. It would be interesting to know
whether the Noetic Society could function concertedly as part of the
solutative apparatus, or whether it is content to remain a vehicle for
socializing and desultory puzzling. This question seems to demand an
answer.

(All contents copyrighted 1989, C. M. Langan)

www.ctmu.net
www.megafundation.org