BROADCASTS.com

b'

RJ Zigerell (h/t Marginal Revolution) studies\\xa0public support for eugenics. He finds that about 40% of Americans support some form of eugenics. The policies discussed were very vague, like \\u201cencouraging poor criminals to have fewer children\\u201d or \\u201cencouraging intelligent people to have more children\\u201d; they did not specify what form the encouragement would take. Of note, much lack of support for eugenics was a belief that it would not work; people who believed the qualities involved were heritable were much more likely to support programs to select for them. For example, of people who thought criminality was completely genetic, a full 65% supported encouraging criminals to have fewer children.

I was surprised to hear this, because I thought of moral opposition to eugenics was basically universal. If a prominent politician tentatively supported eugenics, it would provoke a media firestorm and they would get shouted down. This would be true even if they supported the sort of generally mild, noncoercive policies the paper seems to be talking about. How do we square that with a 40% support rate?

I think back to a metaphor for norm enforcement I used in an\\xa0argument\\xa0against Bryan Caplan: