Not much seems to have come from the blog for last spring's Human Biological Diversity Day, but there is an interesting essay, HBD and Policy: Which Questions To Ask?
I have often wondered when reading the Steve Sailer, Steven Hsu, Taki's Magazine, or in more guarded forms, Nicholas Wade or Harry Harpending essays But what will we do if/when everyone finally acknowledges the science? What should we do? How will the culture respond? A lot of energy in HBD study goes into fighting off the political attacks and bizarre academic attacks from the social sciences. Races exist, and they have differences. Repeating "There are no bears on Hemlock Mountain. No bears, no bears, no bears at all" has not turned out to be a workable scientific strategy.
The essay reminds us what we did last time, and reminds me of my usual fear when I consider humankind. The progressives of a century ago did believe in human biological diversity, and their solutions were frightening. There is a certain cast of mind which sees a problem and says "The government should try and fix this." It's not only liberals. Plenty of conservatives sign up for knuckleheaded interventions as well.
My own thought is that we start by at least not rewarding bad outcomes. Actively discouraging them or even forbidding them in some way leads immediately to worrisome interventions, but we can at least stop doing what we do now, which is rewarding pathology. But I don't think we can as a culture stop there, and I fear what we will do. I have to wonder if pretending that the lies are true is actually a better solution.