We at GCRI oppose racism, full stop. We previously expressed this in our Statement on Racism published in June 2020 amidst protests over the killings of Ahmaud Arbery, George Floyd, and Breonna Taylor. As that explains, racism is important in its own right and also has significant implications for global catastrophic risk. Now, a troubling new incident within the field of global catastrophic risk motivates us to comment further.
The incident involves the very harmful and scientifically dubious idea of a genetic basis of racial differences in intelligence. As elaborated below, this idea is harmful because it perpetuates the idea that people of certain races should dominate people of other races. Because the idea is so harmful, it should not in general be entertained, except to push back against it and the problems it causes. Instead, attention should go to the many conversations and actions needed to counteract racism and its harmful effects.
The incident involves a 1995 listserv email by Nick Bostrom and the apology Bostrom published about one week ago (i.e., in January 2023). We consider this matter worth addressing because Bostrom is a senior scholar of global catastrophic risk and related topics and because the broader field of global catastrophic risk also struggles with issues of race. This is an important moment for the field to learn and improve. Indeed, it has already sparked significant discussion (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6).
The 1995 listserv email states Bostrom’s belief that there are racial differences in intelligence, specifically that “Blacks are more stupid than whites”. It then uses a racial slur that will not be repeated here. In the 2023 apology, Bostrom states, “I completely repudiate this disgusting email from 26 years ago”. The apology also laments the “deeply unfair” non-genetic circumstances that lead “to inequality in social outcomes” and notes Bostrom’s own charitable contributions to addressing this unfairness. These are commendable gestures. However, the apology explicitly leaves open the possibility of genetic causes of racial differences in intelligence and fails to acknowledge the ways in which doing so is harmful.
For centuries, people—especially people of White or European ancestry—have proposed that there may be innate differences between people of different races on attributes including intelligence, virtue, and industriousness. Academic theories such as environmental determinism were developed to explain these purported differences. These propositions have, in many cases, been used to justify the political domination of one race over another, such as in colonial subjugation (as in the image above, from the Indonesian War of Independence from the Dutch Empire) and the so-called White man’s burden. In extreme cases, it has even motivated genocide.
In the present era, raising the idea of genetic racial differences in intelligence serves to perpetuate the very harmful idea that people of some races deserve to be in dominant positions of power and to be favored more generally. Suffice to say, that latter idea is one that society is still struggling to overcome. A powerful illustration is research that found that resumes with typical White names received 50% more positive responses than resumes with typical Black names despite the resumes being designed to have identical qualifications. This is not a genetic difference in intelligence or even a societal failure to provide equal education—it is a societal failure to recognize the intelligence and education that Black people do in fact have.
If it was Bostrom’s intent, in the 2023 apology, to perpetuate the political dominance of certain races, then that is an abomination. Alternatively, if that was not Bostrom’s intent, then his words are ignorant in a very worrisome fashion.
Bostrom’s apology states that he is not an expert on the genetics of racial differences in intelligence. Neither are we. However, it should be abundantly clear to everyone that there are highly intelligent people of all races. Furthermore, even a quick glance at the research on this topic should give one pause. For example, the Wikipedia article on the topic—an obvious starting point—states “the scientific consensus is that genetics does not explain differences in IQ test performance between groups, and that observed differences are environmental [i.e., non-genetic] in origin”, and further that “modern science has shown race to be a social construct rather than a biological reality, and intelligence has no undisputed definition”, and “the validity of IQ testing as a metric for human intelligence is itself disputed”, and finally that “pseudoscientific claims of inherent differences in intelligence between races have played a central role in the history of scientific racism”. These statements are consistent with our general understanding of the topic and our read of additional publications including research papers (1, 2, 3, 4) and popular media articles (1, 2, 3, 4). Whether intentionally or not, Bostrom’s professed openness to the idea of a genetic basis of racial differences in intelligence aligns himself with the perpetuation of systemic racism.
Bostrom’s apology is further concerning because it paints himself as the victim of people “digging through the archives” of the 1990s listserve for content to be “used in smear campaigns”. The same tactic is used by people who advocate for the idea that there is a genetic cause for racial differences in intelligence and who also downplay the role of unjust treatment of people of different races. Like Bostrom, these people are often White males in high-status professional positions. The victimhood tactic is problematic because it focuses attention on the minor problem (if it is even a problem at all) of successful White people enduring some uncomfortable criticism instead of on the major problem of systemic racism in society.
Finally, it appears that Bostrom posted a deeply troubling line on his personal website alongside the apology. The line laments “that the world is a conspiracy to distract us from what’s important”, including by “buzzing menacingly around our ears like a swarm of bloodthirsty mosquitos”. This line appears on his website on 14 January 2023, as does his apology; neither appear on 1 January 2023. At the time of this writing (19 January 2023), the line “conspiracy to distract” part remains but the “bloodthirsty mosquitos” part has been removed. The apparent implication of this is that concern about racial justice is a distraction, perhaps even akin to bloodthirsty mosquitoes.
Bostrom is not just a lone researcher. He also serves as Director of the Future of Humanity Institute. That makes his conduct in this incident especially alarming. All organization leaders should understand and, as needed, be able to articulate the important and pervasive issues of racism affecting society. This is important for hiring practices, internal team building, and external relations. Bostrom’s conduct falls woefully short. Some process is needed to address this. At a minimum, FHI leadership should go through a robust program of training on matters of diversity and inclusivity.
The incident also underscores the need for the field of global catastrophic risk to improve its handling of racial issues. Other fields have done more on this; we should learn from their experience. See for example this, this, this, and this. Recommendations include funding and institutional support for underrepresented racial groups, initiatives taken by all individuals but especially management and leadership, and recognition that diversity statistics are important but only capture part of what is needed. Even those of us who strongly identify as “not racist” still have work to do to improve our own thinking and behavior and to improve the overall field. Furthermore, the tendency of society to underestimate the abilities of people of color means that there is likely to be a lot of underutilized talent. The field should actively welcome this talent. GCRI certainly aims to do that.
Sincerely,
Seth Baum, Executive Director
Tony Barrett, Director of Research
Image: Dutch soldiers in during the Indonesian National Revolution, 1946. Image credit: Nationaal Archief (Dutch National Archives).
