'Slow mobility' as used here implies a natural class structure. It means that
one would only slowly, and not usually, 'rise above the station' of their
parents, presumably in terms of wealth, education, and opportunity. If you
are born to poor parents, you are likely of an inferior genetic quality, and
your poverty is deserved, your success unlikely.
The reason for this, as cited in this piece in The Economist, is because
children of 'the elite' will have 'inherited the talent, energy, drive, and
resilience to overcome the many obstacles they will face in life.' Supplemented
of course by the easy opportunities, great connections, and access to power.
And virtual freedom from prosecution does not hurt either, in case they have
inherited a penchant for sociopathy, or worse.
And by inference, the children of the poor will not, because they are
genetically inferior. Those pesky 47% who deserve to be cheated and robbed by
the elite, as their due because of the inherent superiority of the one
percent. There is no fraud in the system, only good and bad breeding.
This is a logical outcome of the credibility trap, and a pride which
rationalizes the great crimes concealed by great fortunes. We stole from
them, but they had it coming. And now managing what to do with them and their
children is our burden, but we will address the problem with our usual
hardness and vigor.
The assumption in this is that society a naturally efficient meritocracy,
despite the enormous advantages of the children of 'the elite,' because they
would have succeeded anyway.
I succeed, therefore I am. And if you do not, well, we shall have to do
something about that drag on the efficiency of the economy and the
maximization of profits. Ah, the burdens of the aristocracy.
Such thoughts echo throughout the Anglo-American culture of late, in the
evolving mythos of those who enjoy certain völkisch
advantages, presumably justified by their blood.
...Many
commentators automatically assume that low intergenerational mobility rates
represent a social tragedy. I do not understand this reflexive wailing and
beating of breasts in response to the finding of slow mobility rates.
The fact that the social competence of children is highly predictable once we
know the status of their parents, grandparents and great-grandparents is not
a threat to the American Way of Life and the ideals of the open society.
The children of earlier elites will not succeed because they are born with a
silver spoon in their mouth, and an automatic ticket to the Ivy League.
They will succeed because they have inherited the talent, energy, drive,
and resilience to overcome the many obstacles they will face in life. Life is
still a struggle for all who hope to have economic and social success. It is
just that we can predict who will be likely to possess the necessary
characteristics from their ancestry.
Greg Clark, The Economist, 13 Feb. 2013
Mr. Clark is now a professor of economics and department chair until 2013
at the University of California, Davis. His areas of research are long term
economic growth, the wealth of nations, and the economic history of England
and India.
"During
this time, a growing professional class believed that scientific progress
could be used to cure all social ills, and many educated people accepted that
humans, like all animals, were subject to natural selection. Darwinian
evolution viewed humans as a flawed species that required pruning to maintain
its health. Therefore negative eugenics seemed to offer a rational solution
to certain age-old social problems."
David Micklos, Elof
Carlson, Engineering American Society: The Lesson of Eugenics
“With
savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive
commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised
men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we
build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute
poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of
every one to the last moment.
There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from
a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak
members of civilised societies propagate their
kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt
that this must be highly injurious to the race of man.
It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to
the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man
himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to
breed.
The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an
incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired
as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner
previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we
check our sympathy, if so urged by hard reason, without deterioration in the
noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing
an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but
if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be
for a contingent benefit, with a certain and great present evil.
Hence we must bear without complaining the undoubtedly bad effects of the
weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least
one check in steady action, namely the weaker and inferior members of society
not marrying so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased,
though this is more to be hoped for than expected, by the weak in body or
mind refraining from marriage.”
Charles Darwin, The Descent
of Man
