Thought Crimes
Only in America could a comment like “stupidity should be cured” or “ugly should be prevented” be met with such indignationand embarassment. It’s as if James Watson let out a loud belch during a dramatic pause in the preacher’s sermon, and the congregation has quickly muffled their snickers to act as if nothing has happened.
Even noticing a correlation between genotype and phenotype has become a thought crime; proof of an individual’s secret support forNazi eugenics. Of course, the word “stupidity” itself is criminal in America, since the word causes emotional distress to those with “reduced mental capacity”. And furthermore, we have learned that nobody is stupid; people are all equally smart but just in different ways. There is no objective scale by which intelligence can be measured; just a rich diversity of multiple intelligences. Just as we risk losingcures for cancer by losing endangeredfrogs of the rain forest, we never know when society’s survival will depend on some secrets locked inside the IQ 15 head.
Granted, both smart and beautiful are subjective and culturally biased. But in a very general sense, there is little subjective about basic mental and physical health, and genotypes which sabotage either are reflected in phenotypes that are considered “stupid” or “ugly”. And cases where genotype leads to a universally obvious “stupid” or “ugly” phenotype are evenly distributed across all race and class divisions. Would Watson’s comments have attracted less controversy if he had pledged to use genetics to “stamp out congenital mental and physical health inhibitors?” Is it less of a crime if done on behalf of protecting victims from disease? Is it more of a crime if done on behalf of an old scientist who wants to be surrounded by beauty?