What do you think?
Rate this book
Genetic Diversity & Human Equality
Education, Psychology
128 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1973
89 people want to read
About the author
Theodosius Dobzhansky
68 books31 followersTheodosius Grygorovych Dobzhansky (Ukrainian: Теодо́сій Григо́рович Добжа́нський; Russian: Феодо́сий Григо́рьевич Добржа́нский) , Ph.D. (University of Leningrad, 1927; B.S., Biology, University of Kiev, 1921), was a prominent geneticist and evolutionary biologist, one of the central figures in modern evolutionary synthesis; his major work concerning the latter is "Genetics and the Origin of Species", published in 1937. He emigrated to the USA in 1927 on a scholarship from the Rockefeller Foundation.
Dobzhansky was the recipient of the National Medal of Science in 1964 and the Franklin Medal in 1973.
Dobzhansky was the recipient of the National Medal of Science in 1964 and the Franklin Medal in 1973.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
June 6, 2024
THE FAMED GENETICIST ADDRESSES VARIOUS CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES
Theodosius Dobzhansky (1900-1975) was a famous geneticist and evolutionary biologist.
He wrote in the first chapter of this 1973 book, “Widespread in the modern world… is the doctrine that all men are or should be equals… The idea frequently bogs down in confusion and apparent contradiction. Equality is confused with identity, and diversity with inequality… Political propagandists, of both the extreme right and left, spread the confusion deliberately… Defenders of equality become entangled … when they attempt to minimize or deny human genetic diversity. They overlook… that the diversity is an observable fact of nature, while equality is an ethical commandment. At least in principle, equality can be withheld from, or bestowed upon, members of a society or citizens of a state regardless of how similar or diverse they are, Inequality is also not biologically given but is rather a socially imposed prescription.” (Pg. 3-4)
He states, “The extravagant claims and counterclaims should not preclude a rational view of the issue. The warrant for IQ testing is simply its statistical predictive power… it is undeniable that there are significant statistical correlations among IQ scores, success in schooling, advancement in occupational structure … [and] prestige and pecuniary rewards meted out in western capitalist or ‘postindustrial’ societies. It is important to keep in mind that, since the correlations are not perfect, the IQ does not reliably forecast the achievement of an individual tested.” (Pg. 11-12) Later, he notes, “the genetic conditioning of IQs does not make them impervious to environmental modification.” (Pg. 15) Furthermore, “IQ is not a unitary trait determined by a single gene; it is a composite of numerous genetic components.” (Pg. 27)
He observes, “To describe human populations in terms of the proportions of different ‘pure races’ or ‘types’ has been a dream of some physical anthropologists, and this dream dies hard… But it is a pipe dream, because mankind is, and always was, a sexually reproducing and outbreeding species… it has and can have no clones, no pure lines, and no pure races. It consists of genetically unique individuals. False leads to the dreamland of ‘pure races’ have nevertheless abounded. It would be so nice to be able to tell what pure race every individual belongs!” (Pg. 54) Later, he adds, “Though this cannot be documented, all humans are relatives.” (Pg. 57)
He argues, “Adherents of the ‘no races’ school argue that one should study the geographical distributions of genes and character frequencies, rather than attempt to delimit races. The truth is that both kinds of studies are necessary… To hold that because races are not rigidly fixed units they do not exist is a throwback to typological thinking of the most misleading kind.” (Pg. 72)
But he points out, “The adaptive significance of even so obvious a trait as skin pigmentation has not been fully clarified. The notion that a dark skin is protective against sunburn… is not free of exceptions; the Indians of equatorial South America are not particularly dark, and some of the natives of northeastern Siberia are at least as dark as those of Mediterranean.” (Pg. 73-74)
He suggests, “It is most likely that race differentiation in man arose neither by selection nor by drift alone, but by interaction of these evolutionary forces. It would nevertheless be foolhardy to attempt to dichotomize racial differences into adaptively meaningful and adaptively neutral ones. The possibility must be considered that genetic differences between the faces and populations were adaptive in the past but are neutral in the present.” (Pg. 85)
He summarizes, “Equality should not be confused with biological identity, or genetic diversity with inequality. Human equality and inequality are not statements of observable biological conditions. They are policies adopted by societies, ethical principles, and religious commandments. People can be made equal before the law, equality of opportunity may be promoted or guaranteed, human dignity equally recognized, and human beings can be regarded equally God’s sons and daughters. To be equal, people need not be… genetically alike… There is no reason why monozygotic twins must necessarily be social equals… People can be made equal or unequal by the societies in which they live; they cannot be made genetically or biologically identical, even if this were desirable. In principle, human diversity is as incompatible with equality as it is with inequality.” (Pg. 86-87)
He states, “Our species, mankind, is almost certainly alone in the universe, and to that extent our planet is also unique.” (Pg. 101) Later, he adds, “What difference does the idea of evolution make? Quite simply, it is this: the universe is not a status but a process… The creation is going forward now, and may conceivably go on indefinitely… An important role in this forward movement belongs to the phenomenon called life, and to one particular form thereof called mankind, which exists as far as we know only on a single and not otherwise remarkable planet.” (Pg. 111)
This book will be of great interest to those studying the various issues of human differences, and their social implications.
Theodosius Dobzhansky (1900-1975) was a famous geneticist and evolutionary biologist.
He wrote in the first chapter of this 1973 book, “Widespread in the modern world… is the doctrine that all men are or should be equals… The idea frequently bogs down in confusion and apparent contradiction. Equality is confused with identity, and diversity with inequality… Political propagandists, of both the extreme right and left, spread the confusion deliberately… Defenders of equality become entangled … when they attempt to minimize or deny human genetic diversity. They overlook… that the diversity is an observable fact of nature, while equality is an ethical commandment. At least in principle, equality can be withheld from, or bestowed upon, members of a society or citizens of a state regardless of how similar or diverse they are, Inequality is also not biologically given but is rather a socially imposed prescription.” (Pg. 3-4)
He states, “The extravagant claims and counterclaims should not preclude a rational view of the issue. The warrant for IQ testing is simply its statistical predictive power… it is undeniable that there are significant statistical correlations among IQ scores, success in schooling, advancement in occupational structure … [and] prestige and pecuniary rewards meted out in western capitalist or ‘postindustrial’ societies. It is important to keep in mind that, since the correlations are not perfect, the IQ does not reliably forecast the achievement of an individual tested.” (Pg. 11-12) Later, he notes, “the genetic conditioning of IQs does not make them impervious to environmental modification.” (Pg. 15) Furthermore, “IQ is not a unitary trait determined by a single gene; it is a composite of numerous genetic components.” (Pg. 27)
He observes, “To describe human populations in terms of the proportions of different ‘pure races’ or ‘types’ has been a dream of some physical anthropologists, and this dream dies hard… But it is a pipe dream, because mankind is, and always was, a sexually reproducing and outbreeding species… it has and can have no clones, no pure lines, and no pure races. It consists of genetically unique individuals. False leads to the dreamland of ‘pure races’ have nevertheless abounded. It would be so nice to be able to tell what pure race every individual belongs!” (Pg. 54) Later, he adds, “Though this cannot be documented, all humans are relatives.” (Pg. 57)
He argues, “Adherents of the ‘no races’ school argue that one should study the geographical distributions of genes and character frequencies, rather than attempt to delimit races. The truth is that both kinds of studies are necessary… To hold that because races are not rigidly fixed units they do not exist is a throwback to typological thinking of the most misleading kind.” (Pg. 72)
But he points out, “The adaptive significance of even so obvious a trait as skin pigmentation has not been fully clarified. The notion that a dark skin is protective against sunburn… is not free of exceptions; the Indians of equatorial South America are not particularly dark, and some of the natives of northeastern Siberia are at least as dark as those of Mediterranean.” (Pg. 73-74)
He suggests, “It is most likely that race differentiation in man arose neither by selection nor by drift alone, but by interaction of these evolutionary forces. It would nevertheless be foolhardy to attempt to dichotomize racial differences into adaptively meaningful and adaptively neutral ones. The possibility must be considered that genetic differences between the faces and populations were adaptive in the past but are neutral in the present.” (Pg. 85)
He summarizes, “Equality should not be confused with biological identity, or genetic diversity with inequality. Human equality and inequality are not statements of observable biological conditions. They are policies adopted by societies, ethical principles, and religious commandments. People can be made equal before the law, equality of opportunity may be promoted or guaranteed, human dignity equally recognized, and human beings can be regarded equally God’s sons and daughters. To be equal, people need not be… genetically alike… There is no reason why monozygotic twins must necessarily be social equals… People can be made equal or unequal by the societies in which they live; they cannot be made genetically or biologically identical, even if this were desirable. In principle, human diversity is as incompatible with equality as it is with inequality.” (Pg. 86-87)
He states, “Our species, mankind, is almost certainly alone in the universe, and to that extent our planet is also unique.” (Pg. 101) Later, he adds, “What difference does the idea of evolution make? Quite simply, it is this: the universe is not a status but a process… The creation is going forward now, and may conceivably go on indefinitely… An important role in this forward movement belongs to the phenomenon called life, and to one particular form thereof called mankind, which exists as far as we know only on a single and not otherwise remarkable planet.” (Pg. 111)
This book will be of great interest to those studying the various issues of human differences, and their social implications.
June 4, 2019
A profoundly dishonest work. Even at this period, this is intellectually pathetic. No wonder Lewontin studied under him!
June 10, 2009
The treatment of this book is very much a product of the mid-70s, yet it remains relevant, today. Most important is the first chapter, addressing the correlation between IQ and genetic inheritance.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews