Experts Gone Awry: Eugenics Movement Revisited

Yesterday I shared how an expert, with major funding, built what was expected to be the first airplane. Instead, it crashed, and the New York Times declared that it would be a million years before we'd witness a manned flying machine. This was 1903, yet before the year's end the Wright Brothers made aviation history. The point being that experts don't always know what they're talking about.

Looking back on a century ago, one might be surprised at how many bad ideas were germinated by so-called experts, especially when you consider the ideas spawned by Social Darwinism. Because of its utopian belief in human perfectibility -- that is, the perfectibility of the human race -- and confidence in it experts, the movement went off the rails by embracing the eugenics movement.

I don't know your thoughts about Woodrow Wilson as a president, but the more I learn the further he falls down the ranks in my book. Woodrow Wilson was a supporter of the eugenics movement and the broader "racial science" prevalent during the Progressive Era. He viewed it as a rational, scientific approach to improving human heredity and social organization. His endorsement of eugenic principles was intertwined with his advocacy for white supremacy, and his policies on segregation.

I never knew that as Governor of New Jersey, Wilson signed a bill in 1911 that authorized the compulsory sterilization of criminals and those considered mentally disabled. It was described as "An act to authorize and provide for the sterilization of feeble-minded, epileptics, rapists, certain criminals, and other defectives". This aligned with similar measures he campaigned for in Indiana in 1907 with the end result that Indiana passed the first eugenics-based compulsory sterilization law in the world. [EdNote: The law was overturned in 1921. However, in 1927 the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Virginia Sterilization Act of 1924, allowing for the compulsory sterilization of patients of state mental institutions. Go figure.]

How could this happen? Well, because educated "experts" persuaded the public this was good and right.

Wilson used the theories of eugenics to justify his belief in the inherent superiority of white individuals, particularly those of Nordic descent. He frequently expressed racist views and viewed Black people as inferior.

On March 9, 1919, the Legislature of North Carolina passed a similar law with the fancy title "An act to benefit the moral, mental, or physical condition of the inmates of penal and charitable institutions." The purpose of this legislation, as the name suggests, was to "improve" the condition of individuals living in state institution by allowing them to be sterilized.

Actually there were a lot of liberal ad ssocialist intellectuals who supported eugenics during the early-to-mid 20th century, including H.G. Wells and the founder of Planned Parenthood Margaret Sanger, as well as Bertrand Russell. Regarding Russell, I remember hearing Andy Rooney of 60 Minutes fame going on a rant against Christianity on the radio and citing Bertand Russell, "the smartest man of the las 100 years," as proof that there was no God because Russell was an atheist. Which again proves my point: experts don't always know what they're talking about.

[EdNote: This occurred around late February 2004, right after The Passion of the Christ opened in theaters. Contemporary accounts describe Rooney delivering a “mean-spirited diatribe” against the film and Gibson, essentially arguing that a brilliant thinker like Russell (a well-known atheist and philosopher) rejected Christianity, so the movie’s religious premise was suspect or unworthy of serious regard.]

 

The scary part of this story is not what we've done in the past. Rather, how pervasive, influential and damaging they can be when pushed by so-called experts and their media mouthpieces. It takes work to stay informed. When advocates trot out their troves of experts, it does not mean they are right.

Ideas have consequences. Bad ideas have bad consequences.

Second International Eugenics Conference

https://eugenicsarchive.ca/discover/timeline/517228a6eed5c60000000017
includes timeline

September 25-28, 1921. The Second International Eugenics Congress at the American Museum of Natural History in New York, one of three held between 1912 and 1932. Fifty-three scientific papers were presented, most by Americans, and Alexander Graham Bell served as honorary president. The conference was originally scheduled for 1915 but due to the outbreak of the First World War, was re-scheduled.

America's Hidden History: The Eugenics Movement

https://www.nature.com/scitable/forums/genetics-generation/america-s-hidden-history-the-eugenics-movement-123919444/#:~:text=The%20eugenics%20movement%20took%20root,and%20principal%20interested%20in%20breeding.&text=Movies%20and%20books%20promoting%20eugenic%20principles%20were%20popular.

The most significant era of eugenic sterilization was between 1907 and 1963, when over 64,000 individuals were forcibly sterilized under eugenic legislation in the United States. Beginning around 1930, there was a steady increase in the percentage of women sterilized, and in a few states only young women were sterilized

A 1937 Fortune magazine poll found that 2/3 of respondents supported eugenic sterilization of "mental defectives", 63% supported sterilization of criminals, and only 15% opposed both.

No one knows for certain how many compulsory sterilizations occurred between the late 1960s to 1970s, though it is estimated that at least 80,000 may have been conducted

Harry Laughlin 

https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/eugenical-sterilization-united-states-1922-harry-h-laughlin 

Eugenical Sterilization in the United States (1922), by Harry H. Laughlin

A 1922 book in which author Harry H. Laughlin argues for the necessity of compulsory sterilization in the United States based on the principles of eugenics. 

Eugenical Sterilization in the United States is 502 pages long and has seventeen chapters. Harry Olson, the Chief Justice of Chicago's Municipal Court, introduces the book, followed by a preface written by Laughlin

 the book reports Laughlin's analysis of how states could benefit from sterilizing their mentally disabled residents, and it reprinted his model sterilization law, which he encouraged state governments to adopt. Laughlin's model sterilization law stressed the need for the sterilization of populations that Laughlin deemed inadequate for reasons ranging from physical appearance to socioeconomic status. The document influenced twentieth century legislation in the US about reproduction and compulsory sterilization. Although Laughlin suffered from epilepsy, he advocated for breeding out specific populations from the general population, including epileptics, the physically disabled, the mentally disabled, alcoholics, the blind, and the deaf. 

Related Links

Bad Ideas: The Eugenics Movement In America

https://pioneerproductions.blogspot.com/2012/01/bad-ideas-eugenics-movement.html

Shedding More Light on the History of Eugenics: Are These Ideas Still With Us Today?

https://pioneerproductions.blogspot.com/2021/02/shedding-more-light-on-history-of.html

Eugenics, Revisited

https://pioneerproductions.blogspot.com/2010/02/eugenics-revisited.html

When the New York Times Said Human Flight Was a Million Years Away, How Quickly It Was Proved Wrong

One of my favorite themes over the years has been the unreliability of experts. You can read a batch of examples here in my 2007 blog post "Experts don't always know what they are talking about." Most of these examples are quite amusing. Would that all proclamations were  harmless and amusing.

Da Vinci's design for a flying machine.

Nevertheless, I just learned a new one about human flight, and I think you'll find this entertaining. 

In October 1903, the New York Times published one of the most famously wrong editorials in journalistic history. Titled “Flying Machines Which Do Not Fly,” it confidently declared that a practical flying machine would require “the combined and continuous efforts of mathematicians and mechanicians in from one million to ten million years.”

No doubt many people were thinking about manned flight in those days, in part stimulated by Jules Verne's fanciful 1886 sci-fi novel Robur the Conqueror (a.k.a. The Clipper of the Clouds) which featured a massive, propeller-driven heavier-than-air machine named the Albatross. 

Four centuries earlier Leonardo Da Vinci contemplated the possibilities of manned flight, so this was not an entirely new idea. What was new were the advances in technology that had been emerging over time.

So back to our story.

At the time, the most respected scientific authority on aviation in America was Samuel Pierpont Langley, Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution. Langley had conducted promising experiments with unmanned, steam-powered models. Impressed, the U.S. War Department gave him roughly $50,000 — a huge sum in 1903 — plus institutional backing from the Smithsonian to build a manned “Aerodrome.”

With Langley's prestige, funding, and the full weight of America’s scientific establishment behind it, the Aerodome was launched from a houseboat on the Potomac River. It promptly plunged into the water like a “handful of mortar,” as one observer put it. 

The pilot, Charles Manly, survived thanks in part to a cork jacket. (You can see one of these at Corktown here in Duluth, I believe.)

The New York Times jumped on the fiasco just two days later with its October 9 editorial. Langley’s very public failure was proof that powered human flight was essentially impossible in any reasonable timeframe. If the best-funded, most credentialed expert in the country couldn’t do it, the editorial implied, then who could?

Langley may have been humiliated, but to his credit he didn'quit. On December 8, 1903 Langley tried again. This time the Aerodrome collapsed during launch, its wings crumpling as it tumbled back into the river. Another high-profile disaster.

Kitty Hawk, December 17, 1903

Nine days later, on December 17, 1903, if you remember your history, at a windswept beach in Kitty Hawk, North Carolina, two brothers from Dayton, Ohio, achieved what the experts had declared would take millions of years. Orville and Wilbur Wright — self-taught bicycle mechanics with no formal scientific training, no government grants, and only a few hundred dollars of their own money — flew the first powered, controlled, sustained flight of a heavier-than-air machine.

They completed four flights that day. The longest lasted 59 seconds and covered 852 feet. They built their own wind tunnel, designed a lightweight gasoline engine, and solved critical problems of control through relentless experimentation and iteration. They didn't have elite credentials or massive institutional funding. Just a "can do" persistence and practical ingenuity.

At its core, it’s a story about how elites and credentialed “experts” can mistake their own failures — or the limits of their approach — for the permanent boundaries of human possibility.

Langley had resources and prestige. The Wrights had grit and a willingness to question conventional wisdom. One approach crashed (literally). The other soared. Or sort of soared. For sure, they got off the ground and that was a start. As I write these words Artemis II is two-thirds of the way to the moon with four astronauts sharing the adventure of a lifetime. [Trivia: Did you know that Artemis, in Greek mythology, was the twin sister of Apollo?]

I'm surprised at how quickly the NYTimes rushed to declare the death of the dream (of manned flight) after the establishment’s golden boy failed, then had to watch these two nobodies from Ohio prove them wrong.

Lesson: Whenever you hear confident pronouncements from prestigious institutions that something is “impossible,” “decades away,” or “requires massive top-down funding and expertise,” remember the Wright brothers.

My main point remains: experts, even when earnest, don't always know what they are talking about. Add to this the reality that there are a lot of people with agendas who use the media to parade their "experts" in the service of those agendas. Don't be suckered. Learn to discern.

Thomas Sowell's A Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Struggles

Fifty years ago or so I came to a realization that there were essentially, below the surface of all our various differences, two basic views on the human condition. One was utopian and the contrary one tragic. The former believed in the perfectibility of man. The latter, that we live in a broken world and that brokenness, despite our best intentions, was within us as well as in the culture and society around us.

Writers like Charles Reich (The Greening of America, 1970) proposed that some new wonderfulness had emerged in the Sixties and people would not only live in harmony with nature but with one another. I specifically remember one passage where he said there would be no more bullying in schools, at which I threw the book across the room. (No, I didn't really do that. I simply stopped taking him seriously.)

Naturally I felt out of step with these utopians, and looking back over these many decades it's evident that my gut was right.

Actually, it wasn't my instincts alone, but a basic truth from the Bible that spoke loud and clear (even though Scripture itself says God speaks in a "still small voice.") As the prophet Jeremiah wrote, "The heart is deceitful above all things."

Even the Greeks understood this, leaving a trail of insights about human nature in the plays of Aeschyles and Sophocles. Likewise we see tragedy re-enacted in the plays of Shakespeare and many others from Ibsen to Tennessee Williams.

So it was refreshing to find confirmation in a number of contemporary writers who spoke clearly to this matters, one of these being Thomas Sowell. In his book A Conflict of Visions (1987) Sowell argues that many enduring ideological divides in politics, law, economics, and social policy stem not primarily from differing interests or surface-level disagreements, but from these two fundamentally opposing "visions" of human nature and the world. These visions are based on presuppositions that serve as a pre-analytical frameworks—intuitive senses of causation, reality, and human potential—that shape how people interpret evidence and prioritize goals, even when they share similar moral ends like justice or equality.

Sowell calls them the constrained vision (sometimes linked to a "tragic" view) and the unconstrained vision (the more utopian or optimistic view). They form a continuum rather than rigid categories, but they consistently cluster beliefs across disparate disciplines and issues. Sowell draws on thinkers like Adam Smith, Edmund Burke, and Friedrich Hayek for the constrained side, and William Godwin, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and others for the unconstrained side.

The book pits these opposing perspectives against one another is four areas: (1) Human Nature and Its Limits 
(2) Knowledge, Reason, and Decision-Making  
(3) Social Processes, Trade-Offs, and Causation 
(4) Implications for Key Concepts (Freedom, Equality, Justice, Power)

When it comes to human nature, it seems self-evident to most of us that we are inherently flawed, self-interested, and limited in morality, reason, and foresight. Selfishness and dangerous impulses are enduring features, not easily eradicated. Social order and progress depend on external constraints (institutions, incentives, traditions) that channel self-interest productively while accepting trade-offs and unintended consequences.

The optimistic view sees human nature is malleable and fundamentally good (or perfectible) when freed from corrupting influences like bad institutions or insufficient enlightenment. With proper reason, education, or leadership, people can transcend narrow self-interest and achieve far higher levels of altruism, rationality, and harmony. Problems often stem from systemic barriers rather than innate human flaws. 

This utopian optimism sounds good, but where and when has it ever panned out?

When it comes to knowledge, reason, and decision-making, the constrained view emphasizes accumulated experience, systemic processes (e.g., markets, common law, evolved traditions), and decentralized decision-making. Sowell repeatedly stresses that no individual or elite possesses enough knowledge or virtue to centrally plan complex social outcomes effectively. "Locus of discretion" lies with individuals acting in their own spheres, guided by incentives and feedback rather than articulated grand designs.  

The utopian (unconstrained view) trusts articulated reason and the insights of the intellectually or morally advanced. (i.e. The elite.) Experts or surrogates (e.g., enlightened leaders, planners) can discern and impose optimal solutions for society as a whole. Systemic processes are suspect if they produce imperfect results; intentions and rational redesign matter more than historical precedents.

I've been listening to a number of Thomas Sowell videos lately (which prompted me to pull out my books) and in one of them he shares one of the major differences between private businesses and government. When a business makes bad decisions and lose too much money, they fail. It's an expensive learning experience or, if too costly, they go out of business. When government bodies make bad decisions, they didn't lose their own money. It was taxpayer dollars, so there is little personal pain. Thus they are free to double down on bad ideas and lose even more money, which likewise causes little pain.

Here in Minnesota the ongoing trials and convictions taking place in the Feeding Our Future fraud cases illustrate perfectly the conflicting visions at work. The utopians (unconstrained vision) in their belief in the goodness of all people place little oversight on their programs because of their faith in the basic goodness of everyone. I saw this firsthand while painting apartments in South Minneapolis in the early 80s. The only difference between the Feeding Our Future scam ($250+ million*) and things I saw 45 years ago is the scale. 

* * *

In the realm of social processes Sowell reminds us that there are always trade-offs. Society improves (or avoids disaster) through evolved processes that create incentives and restraints, producing incremental gains amid inevitable trade-offs. 

The utopian focuses on achieving desired results through deliberate solutions. Social ills have identifiable causes that can be rationally addressed and eliminated (or greatly reduced) by reforming institutions or empowering the right actors. Solutions are feasible; trade-offs are less emphasized than the moral imperative to fix injustices directly. 

[For example, we can could theoretically eliminate all crime by placing extreme constraints on our freedom. Spielberg's Minority Report shows a future where murder can become obsolete by arresting criminals pre-crime.]

Language plays a role here as well. In communicating key concepts like freedom, equality, justice and power, each side defines the issues differently.

Constrained thinkers often prioritize process characteristics (e.g., rule of law, equal rules, negative freedom from coercion) and accept unequal outcomes as natural. 

Unconstrained (utopian) thinkers emphasize outcomes or results (e.g., equality of condition, positive freedom to achieve potential, social justice via redistribution or intervention).

The two visions, for most people, are not fully articulated theories but deep-seated assumptions that resist falsification by evidence alone—people interpret facts through their vision. Liberation from being locked into one vision or the other can happen only when we begin to adopt a humility that makes us willing to re-evaluates our core beliefs. 

In his book Sowell stresses that the conflict is not merely left vs. right (though there are correlations); hybrids and shifts exist, but the underlying tension is ancient and enduring.  

Related Links

Thomas Sowell discusses his Conflict of Visions

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGvYqaxSPp4&t=3s

Are You Protopian, Utopian or Dystopian?
https://pioneerproductions.blogspot.com/2016/07/are-you-protopian-utopian-or-dystopian.html

Read other reviews here at Amazon.com

https://www.amazon.com/Conflict-Visions-Ideological-Political-Struggles/dp/0465002056

*Source: Dept. of Justice

PostScript
Psychologist/author Karen Horney, in her book Our Inner Conflicts, proposes that human neurosis is directly related to the degree to which our idealized self-image diverges from the reality. When our self-image corresponds with who we really are, that is, when have realistic self-awareness, we are healthier and whole. I would suggest that this applies to societies as well. When our leaders are honest and realistic, our laws and governance will be healthier and more fruitful than when our leaders persist in ignoring reality to embrace dreams of a future La-La Land.

Is Reality Optional? Thomas Sowell’s Sharp Warning Against Wishful Thinking

My copy, purchased in 1994

When it comes to thinking clearly and speaking pointedly about contemporary issues, there are few better minds than that of Thomas Sowell, an American economist, social theorist, and senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. He's widely regarded as one of the most influential conservative thinkers of the past half-century for his clear-eyed, data-driven critiques of liberal social policies and his emphasis on empirical reality over ideological wishful thinking.

In 1993, Sowell published a short but powerful collection of essays titled Is Reality Optional? And Other Essays. Don’t let the title fool you — this isn’t some abstract philosophy book. It’s a no-nonsense straight-talking takedown of the idea that we can simply ignore reality when it doesn’t fit our favorite theories.

If you step off the roof of your house there will be consequences, whether you believe in the law of gravity or not. So, too, there are laws of economics, which we ignore to our own peril.

Sowell’s central argument is blunt: too many intellectuals, activists, and politicians treat reality as optional. They believe that with enough good intentions, clever policies, or bold social engineering, we can reshape human nature, fix complex problems, and create a better world — even if the evidence says otherwise.
He contrasts two very different ways of looking at the world. One vision (which he calls the “unconstrained” or visionary view) sees humans as highly malleable. If society has problems, it must be because of bad institutions or not enough compassion. The solution? Big government programs and new theories to remake everything.
The other view (the “constrained” or tragic vision) is more realistic. It says human nature has built-in limits — scarcity, self-interest, imperfect knowledge, and trade-offs. Good policy, Sowell argues, must work with these limits instead of pretending they don’t exist.
A quote on the back cover (of my copy) captures the problem perfectly:

““Much of the social history of the Western world, over the past three decades, has been a history of replacing what worked with what sounded good. In area after area—crime, education, housing, race relations—the situation has gotten worse after the bright new theories were put into operation. The amazing thing is that this history of failure and disaster has neither discouraged the social engineers nor discredited them.” (EdNote: This was more than three decades ago, and the trend has continued unabated.) 

Sowell points to real-world examples in crime, education, welfare, housing, and race relations. Again and again, “bright new ideas” were tried, problems got worse, and yet the people pushing those ideas rarely faced any consequences. 
He repeatedly warns against what he calls “intellectual hubris” — the dangerous belief that experts know better than millions of ordinary people making decisions in their own lives. Sowell stresses the importance of empirical evidence and common sense (which, as they say, is as rare as the dodo). Start with observable facts and historical results, not beautiful-sounding theories.
At just 192 pages, Is Reality Optional? is short, readable, and often contrarian. Sowell writes like a man tired of watching the same mistakes get repeated while reality keeps sending the bill.
In a world full of grand ideological promises, Sowell reminds us of a simple truth: reality is not optional. You can ignore scarcity, incentives, trade-offs, and human nature for a while — but eventually, they push back.
Here are a few quotes that will give you the flavor of Sowell's ideas.

On Economics vs. Politics

“The first lesson of economics is scarcity: There is never enough of anything to satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics.”

On Faith Masquerading as Science

“Some things must be done on faith, but the most dangerous kind of faith is that which masquerades as ‘science.’”

On Forgiveness and Being Right

“People will forgive you for being wrong, but they will never forgive you for being right—especially if events prove you right while proving them wrong.”

A few more notable quotes from the book:

--“Ordinary people, lacking that gift [of ignoring reality], are forced to face reality.”

--“The welfare state is the oldest con game in the world. First you take people’s money away quietly, and then you give some of it back to them flamboyantly.”

--“It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance.”  

Recommended: Thomas Sowell, who was born in 1930, is still alive and kicking. YouTube has a treasure trove of videos that will give you an opportunity to engage directly with Sowell's ideas. His brain is stuffed with truckloads of facts from a lifetime of research, facts that often remain buried because they fail to fit the Progressive narrative.