In my previous response to Jordan Peterson's Conservative Manifesto, I suggested that his advocacy for a society based on "competence hierarchies" related to innate traits, such as intelligence, signals a troubling alignment with eugenics. Recently, he shared an interview with British Conservative politician and Olympic rower Alex Story, entitled "Eugenics: Flawed Thinking Behind Pushed Science." Feeling a strong sense of obligation, I decided to engage with the content.

The dialogue between Peterson and Story pivots around Story's experiences raising his son, who has Down’s syndrome. Many individuals questioned whether he was aware that his child would be born with this condition, implying that abortion would have been a preferable choice. This led Story to explore the historical context of eugenics, a doctrine advocating for the regulation of human reproduction to enhance genetic quality, a concept infamously tied to the Nazi regime's extermination of those deemed unfit.

However, this personal narrative seems less about the child's experience and more about Story's political journey. While he claims his son has enriched his life, improved his sense of responsibility, and strengthened his marriage, there’s a noticeable absence of the child’s own voice or identity. This scenario echoes critiques made by left-leaning commentator Big Joel, who discusses the portrayal of disability in media narratives.

In a relevant episode, a woman overwhelmed by caring for her mentally disabled brother is given a chance to envision a life without him, only to find it deeply unsatisfying. Ultimately, she recognizes the value of her brother’s presence, leading to his restoration in her life. The reactions from the disabled community to such portrayals are telling:

god i hate the implication that the purpose of our existence as disabled people is to make abled folks more compassionate, but it’s literally everywhere in media

I hate watching shows that use disabled people as ways for “normals” to learn compassion, I even more hate when they can’t even bother to use an actually disabled person in the role.

I was terrified by the idea that my suffering existed for somebody else’s personal growth.

This discourse underscores a troubling pattern where marginalized individuals are often utilized as tools for the enlightenment of the privileged, rather than recognized as distinct individuals with their own lives and aspirations.

While I cannot comment on Story's relationship with his son, it reinforces my earlier conclusion that conservative viewpoints may reduce marginalized individuals to mere instruments for those at the top of the social hierarchy. Although Story asserts that everyone has inherent value, his treatment of his son as a means to his own ends aligns unsettlingly with the critiques of Peterson's philosophy.

Story recounts his own rebellious youth and how his father introduced him to rowing, a discipline that helped him thrive. He notes that his privilege stemmed from having supportive parents, a point he emphasizes after reflecting on a chance encounter with an Olympic gold medalist who later became his mentor.

Peterson's claims that it’s fundamentally impossible to cultivate the bottom 10% of society for complex cognitive tasks suggest a bleak dichotomy: abandon these individuals or eliminate them from the gene pool.

While Story comes across as somewhat egotistical, he does not advocate for eugenics. Instead, Peterson promotes a "spirit of playful reciprocity" rooted in voluntary relationships. He appears to hint at a "hierarchy of play" where individuals engage in decentralized, reciprocal relationships while maintaining some hierarchies.

This interpretation might paint Peterson as a potential anarchist, leaning towards mutualism or egoism, although he generally maintains skepticism towards activism, viewing it as a guise for power grabs by less competent individuals. Peterson associates eugenics with leftist ideologies and suggests that efforts to create a utopian society lead to destructive outcomes, similar to historical atrocities like Mao's Cultural Revolution.

Peterson and his associates appear to be engaging with increasingly extreme viewpoints, as illustrated by Story's reference to a figure advocating for drastic population reduction. This perspective diverges from the left's historical framing of eugenics, which often emphasizes its connections to white supremacy and ableism.

I aim neither to defend nor vilify any side. Yes, historical advocates for eugenics exist across the political spectrum, and skepticism towards modern technocratic elites is valid. However, when Peterson frames climate change denial as part of a conspiracy to eliminate billions, it veers into dangerous territory.

Peterson's tendency to express ideas without fully considering their implications raises concerns. His evolving thoughts, while creative, can have far-reaching political consequences. This behavior underscores the need for critical engagement with his assertions, particularly when they may reinforce existing social hierarchies.

Like so many of his ideas, Jordan Peterson’s analysis of the monarchy, while initially seeming profound, lacks depth.

My assessment is that Peterson isn’t inherently malicious but rather exhibits a kind of arrogance that leads to intellectual laziness. My exploration of his work reveals a pattern of inconsistency, with many interpretations appearing deeply troubling. He seems more focused on undermining "woke moralists" than genuinely advocating for the marginalized.

Ultimately, I question whether my efforts to understand these dynamics are worthwhile. Should I invest time in understanding the lives of those often ignored by figures like Peterson and Story, rather than indulging in their narratives?

Peterson is broadly uninterested in discussing the possibility of solving systemic issues systematically.

In conclusion, I find it disheartening that while Peterson critiques cultural issues, he overlooks the systemic challenges faced by the most vulnerable. His focus on individualism often neglects the broader societal structures that perpetuate inequality.