The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Fred Reed ArchiveBlogview
More on Eugenics: What Fun
Appalachian white trash, presenting obvious neurological deficits consequent to inbreeding. A clear argument for eugenics.
Appalachian white trash, presenting obvious neurological deficits consequent to inbreeding. A clear argument for eugenics.

Most considerations of eugenics, before wobbling off into discussions of Hitler, deal with intelligence and physical characteristics, notably health and strength. By those who constitute the best argument for eugenics, eugenics is usually interpreted as a means of oppressing the poor, maltreating the more bedraggled minorities, and euthanizing the retarded. Most commentators on the matter would be endangered by the latter, so I understand their concern.

However, behavior may be a more important field for eugenic consideration. Herewith a few ruminations, offering more questions than answers. See what you think.

Most of the gravest problems facing humanity today have existed since at forever. War, crime, genocide and its approximations, the desire for conquest, lust for power, and a nonsensical pursuit of unusable wealth. We often blame these on proximate causes that seem to make sense at the moment. Currently for example, the Chinese are evil, Iran wants to blow us up, Russia plans to conquer Europe, and ISIS threatens our existence. These reasons, it is now evident, are pretexts for the expression of unwholesome instincts. The Romans honestly conquered for empire and booty, the Americans in the name of Manifest Destiny, the Israelis for lebensraum. We always invent a reason. When cats hunt mice for thousands of years, one may suspect that it is built in. We fight because fighting is what we do.

A crucial point: A great deal of behavior is unmistakably genetic. Babies nurse, toddlers of two raise hell, teenagers rebel and copulate, men of thirty get into bar fights and women don’t.

Genetic behavior goes beyond this into psychological orientation. Dogs are a biological species (or close enough for present purposes). Subspecies of dogs, the parallel of human races, differ genetically in personality and intelligence. Pit bulls and Border Collies are not the same. Within a subspecies, such as German Shepherds, strains can be bred easily for aggressiveness or its absence. Things like pack behavior and barking at strangers exist apart from training or culture. They are innate.

Among humans, individual differences in intelligence and character obviously exist, and any amount of evidence, such as twin studies, suggests strongly that the reasons are substantially genetic.

Philosophical tendencies seem also to be innate. For example, two major behavioral types–subsubspecies if you will–are liberals and conservatives. These display sharply opposed leanings which almost always occur together. Conservatives see life in terms of struggle, danger, tend to believe in authority, form tribal groups to fight other tribal groups, express strong loyalty to their own groups but have no empathy for others. These qualities, ideal for armies and primitive tribes, are found almost universally among military officers. Liberals across the board are opposite.

Both groups derive their outlooks from the same evidence–the world–and since there is not logical connection between the various traits, genetic causation seems probable.

“Assortative mating,” the tendency for people to marry those similar to themselves, is well known. The intelligent strongly tend to marry each other. There may be political parallels. For example, one does not readily imagine Ann Coulter wedding Michael Moore. Liberals may marry liberals, and conservatives, conservatives, thus aggravating both conditions.

Here we come to genetic manipulation, rapidly moving toward practicality. This is not the place to discuss evolving techniques, (though here), but they assuredly exist. Genetic manipulation hasn’t happened before because the underlying biochemistry was not understood, nor the necessary instrumentation existent. Design is becoming possible, not just by the obvious but politically sensitive use of sperm banks but also, soon, and much faster, by altering DNA. The Chinese are actively working on modifying human embryos for medical purposes.

What I am getting at is that soon, maybe in fifteen years but certainly in fifty, we are going to face the question:

Do we redesign ourselves, or don’t we?

For many people, I among them, the idea is distinctly spooky, encompassing what we think we are, the meaning if any of life, and whether we want to be a race of designer poodles. On the other hand, do we want to go on amid ever-advancing technology with our accustomed slaughter of millions, torture, crime, corruption, and exploitation?

Just now of course no one knows very well what genes control what behavior, or whether all behavior is genetically determined, but this won’t last. Then what? Almost certainly resistance to manipulation will fade as it becomes possible to edit out diseases of genetic origin. This having worked, it will be hard to resist amplifying intelligence. Then…if there are genes for psychopathy, well…I mean, do we really need Ted Bundys? And we are off and running.

Suppose hypothetically that a small number of genes were found to control combativeness. Would it be a good idea to edit the trait out? This presumably would end wars, military budgets, violent crime, and bar fights. If these or other genes caused anti-social behavior, such as burglary and embezzlement, we could end locked doors and police departments. Good idea? Yes? No ? Why?

Of course people designed to be pacific might be at the mercy of those not so designed. A trait highly desirable if universal might be less so if spotty. We might be sculpting ourselves as sheep in a world of wolves.

Complicating things is that what will at first be inefficiently done only in high-end labs will filter down and down until it can be done easily almost anywhere. Remember when computers were exotic? When only Dick Tracy had the two-way wrist radio? Today, at least within a country, various techniques and lines of research can be controlled or forbidden by governments. This won’t continue. True, we are unlikely to see mail-order Design-Your-Dog kits any time soon. How long is any time soon?

Further, while one country may follow ethical guidelines, or what it regards as ethical guidelines, others may not. Countries that build multi-megaton hydrogen bombs for the explicit purpose of incinerating cities are unlikely to balk at, say, making soldiers of unlimited ferocity and endurance. (Adolf was into that.)

ORDER IT NOW

Since controlling them after you built them would be difficult, and given that militaries are moving toward automation of killing, more likely is the breeding–not exactly the right word–of more intelligent engineers. As China develops, the US faces a nation with some five times as many potential engineers. Will countries be forced into the competitive production of smarter scientists as they now compete in the design of supercomputers? Tell me why not.

Interesting question: If manageable numbers of genes are found that increase intelligence, or specific components of intelligence, how much would they increase it? An augmentation of ten or fifteen points of IQ would result in people more or less like ourselves. Fifty or a hundred points would produce almost another species that might regard us as food or detritus to be eliminated.

Skynet or Bionet?

If you think all of this crazy, reflect that gene editing of animals is done now and except for ethical considerations not shared by everyone, the same could be done with humans. As noted, various groups work on modifying human embryos, killing them after a certain number of days.(Nature: “Second Chinese team reports gene editing in human embryos.” Subhead: “Study used CRISPR technology to introduce HIV-resistance mutation into embryos.”)

Within a decade or so, this is going to be a big deal. Watch.

(Reprinted from Fred on Everything by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Science • Tags: Eugenics 
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
[]
  1. Surely the survival and success of humanity depended in the past upon selecting males for combativeness (works well for elephant seals and musk ox too) which psychologists tell us is a temporary diversion of the sexual urge. In fact all great human achievements are probably ultimately down to the same powerful drive – take that away and you might come out with a race of Elois – people with huge IQ potential but, sadly, very little … er, “get up and go” (and that includes in the bedroom).

    I am not even sure if these persons would have the energy to finish college or brush their teeth; still less go on and discover or invent something of astounding value to humankind. However, they would be “extremely, extremely” bright – but come to think of it, what proportion of MENSA members are also high achievers in life? My hunch is the percentage is not so great.

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith

    However, they would be “extremely, extremely” bright – but come to think of it, what proportion of MENSA members are also high achievers in life? My hunch is the percentage is not so great.
     
    Okay, so put your money on the dumbasses winning the contest. You will lose. It is the dumbasses who fight the contest, but it’s the smart ones who reap the benefits of power.
    , @phil
    Heckman's research finding is that there are not diminishing returns to IQ. As IQ goes to 130, 140, and beyond, achievement just keeps on going up.
    , @gwynedd1
    The first guy to make a self sustaining space colony gets a harem. Sounds like a plan.
    , @anon
    what proportion of MENSA members are also high achievers in life? My hunch is the percentage is not so great
    ===
    MENSA types tend to have some social problems because everyone else around them seems dumb and there are not so many common interests. If the 100IQ average is raised so that today's MENSA cutoff (130IQ) is more normal much of this problem would be obviated.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are only available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also only be used once per hour.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    http://www.unz.com/freed/more-on-eugenics-what-fun/#comment-1551644
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. Good – that is all.

    Actually, it’s not all. I look forward to the day when relatively common medical conditions caused by mutations in single genes can be virtually eliminated by screening and the genetic engineering of embryos. Who knows? After that, maybe scientists could tackle maladies like glaucoma, AMD, and rheumatoid arthritis. So many people say they’re afraid of humanity “playing God,” but most of these folks are healthy and likewise blessed with healthy family members. I, on the other hand, am all for genetic engineering as long as it’s used for the betterment of humanity. We’re a rickety species.

    Besides, presuming we don’t wreck the biosphere and suffer an extreme population reduction, we’ll probably need eugenics (the good kind) and genetic engineering to hold back the degradation of our gene pool.

    I’ll even go so far as to say that “designer babies,” if they materialize, will most likely be a good development. Imagine a world in which children no longer must worry about myopia, malocclusion, asthma, deafness, sunburn, having insufficient room for wisdom teeth, depression, chronic sinusitis, etc.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "I’ll even go so far as to say that “designer babies,” if they materialize, will most likely be a good development. Imagine a world in which children no longer must worry about myopia, malocclusion, asthma, deafness, sunburn, having insufficient room for wisdom teeth, depression, chronic sinusitis, etc."

    How will the world sustain such a radical increase in population? How will food and energy resources be develop to ensure quality of life? Those are two monumental issues that bio-ethicists discuss regarding the impact of genetic engineering.
  3. I don’t think there’s any doubt whatsoever that people have been doing some wild and crazy things with DNA

    http://fc09.deviantart.net/fs71/i/2014/031/b/5/world_war_centaur_by_jakeparker-d74lmtu.jpg

    they’re already growing human tissue on mice and pigs

    and all of this will be augmented with cybernetics as well

    it’s going to be a brave, new world

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stealth
    Bring on the organ cloning and nerve splicing/repair, I say.

    Meanwhile, isn't there something we can do about this matter of humans being unable to produce our own vitamin C?
  4. @Rurik
    I don't think there's any doubt whatsoever that people have been doing some wild and crazy things with DNA

    http://fc09.deviantart.net/fs71/i/2014/031/b/5/world_war_centaur_by_jakeparker-d74lmtu.jpg

    they're already growing human tissue on mice and pigs

    and all of this will be augmented with cybernetics as well

    it's going to be a brave, new world

    Bring on the organ cloning and nerve splicing/repair, I say.

    Meanwhile, isn’t there something we can do about this matter of humans being unable to produce our own vitamin C?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    Bring on the organ cloning and nerve splicing/repair, I say.
     
    that's the easy part

    the difficult ethical questions come when people start demanding sons over daughters

    smarts over dullards

    strong children vs. weaklings, once that kind of thing can be chosen

    what about blending the DNA of a narwhal with a horse and making an "unicorn", just for the fun of it, so some Russian oligarch can give it to his daughter for her birthday?

    there's a whole range of possibilities...

    we know they're cloning animals and blending human and animal DNA, what are they doing that we don't know about, is the question.

    http://www.indymedia.org.uk/images/2008/05/399344.jpg
  5. Looking at the projected African population growth, and further noting the West no longer has the will to keep out invading masses…it’s hard not to hope that genetic engineering for intelligence could end up being the only thing saving humanity from a cognitive apocalypse that destroys civilization.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dr. X

    Looking at the projected African population growth, and further noting the West no longer has the will to keep out invading masses…it’s hard not to hope that genetic engineering for intelligence could end up being the only thing saving humanity from a cognitive apocalypse that destroys civilization.
     
    The problem is that the social elites who will be doing the genetic engineering are today's Social Justice Warriors... and if left up to them, they'd increase the African race and destroy the white race.

    Probably what you will see once the liberal elites get genetic engineering technology (and the power to use it) is a global race of passive, feminized, left-wing mulattoes -- the "New Socialist Man."

  6. It’s hard to oppose genetic research and even modification for existing genetically-based illnesses. I have a form of glaucoma that may be genetically based and it would be nice if my descendants could be spared it. But there are a lot of dangers that need to be considered. There will be a temptation to make a good child even better, and without much regard for the long-term consequences for the individual, let alone the species–just look at the use of performance-enhancing drugs among athletes. Another problem is that even well meaning genetic engineers might inadvertantly engineer a pathogen that the species has never encountered and to which it has no resistance–think Black Death enhanced two orders of magnitude; could be the end of homo sapiens.

    Maybe it’s time for the re-release of the 1971 Zager and Evans song Hydra 15000 (a genetically-engineered human). I don’t remember all the lyrics, but the ones that stick in my mind are:

    Hydra 15000, you will never know
    That mankind sacrificed itself so you could live and grow.
    For Hydra 15000, the code will make you free,
    You will not have this Frankenstein that’s living here in me.
    But we cannot live together, it is the only way,
    For I know I would kill you someday.

    Hydra 15000, it you should ever find,
    That you’re not pure and clean, like I tried to make you,
    Promise me.
    Hydra 15000, it’s in the DNA,
    Find the evil cancer, and cut it all away.
    Then Hydra 15000, step down as I have done,
    And sometime before forever, there may be a perfect one.

    Read More
  7. “Fifty or a hundred points would produce almost another species that might regard us as food or detritus to be eliminated.”

    They would probably regard us as pets rather than food.

    Read More
  8. I often seen the sentiment expressed in these comments that Fred had only a half a dozen columns that he endlessly recycled. Now I know it is true.

    We’ve seen this crap before, and it still isn’t going to happen. There will be no genetic engineering. Not now, not ever.

    Read More
    • Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic
    Can you elaborate?

    I can see sort of a "Great Filter" hypothesis here. The technological advantage and knowledge base will first be deployed to make everybody fat, dumb and happy. Then the Idiocracy will collapse into semi-barbarism and nobody will know about genetics much less how to engineer genes. Like how we no longer have the civilizational capacity for manned, extra-orbital space travel.

    Or perhaps you are referring to a biological reason GE is not possible?
    , @Rurik

    There will be no genetic engineering. Not now, not ever.
     
    ever heard of Monsanto?

    "Within the past couple of years, Chinese scientists have set out to infuse dairy cows with certain human genes so that they could basically start producing milk with the same advantageous qualities as human breast milk."


    http://www.conservationinstitute.org/8-bizarre-examples-of-genetic-engineering-in-animals/

    this is just the tip of the iceberg that we know about

    there are labs all over the world that are blazing trails with this stuff without any oversight or restrictions other than their own imaginations

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8GRQHsAVjI

    (RIP)
  9. @macilrae
    Surely the survival and success of humanity depended in the past upon selecting males for combativeness (works well for elephant seals and musk ox too) which psychologists tell us is a temporary diversion of the sexual urge. In fact all great human achievements are probably ultimately down to the same powerful drive - take that away and you might come out with a race of Elois - people with huge IQ potential but, sadly, very little ... er, "get up and go" (and that includes in the bedroom).

    I am not even sure if these persons would have the energy to finish college or brush their teeth; still less go on and discover or invent something of astounding value to humankind. However, they would be "extremely, extremely" bright - but come to think of it, what proportion of MENSA members are also high achievers in life? My hunch is the percentage is not so great.

    However, they would be “extremely, extremely” bright – but come to think of it, what proportion of MENSA members are also high achievers in life? My hunch is the percentage is not so great.

    Okay, so put your money on the dumbasses winning the contest. You will lose. It is the dumbasses who fight the contest, but it’s the smart ones who reap the benefits of power.

    Read More
    • Replies: @macilrae
    You totally miss the point I was trying to make; rather as the wry humor of the picture didn't register with Mr Christian back there!
  10. @Intelligent Dasein
    I often seen the sentiment expressed in these comments that Fred had only a half a dozen columns that he endlessly recycled. Now I know it is true.

    We've seen this crap before, and it still isn't going to happen. There will be no genetic engineering. Not now, not ever.

    Can you elaborate?

    I can see sort of a “Great Filter” hypothesis here. The technological advantage and knowledge base will first be deployed to make everybody fat, dumb and happy. Then the Idiocracy will collapse into semi-barbarism and nobody will know about genetics much less how to engineer genes. Like how we no longer have the civilizational capacity for manned, extra-orbital space travel.

    Or perhaps you are referring to a biological reason GE is not possible?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Intelligent Dasein

    Can you elaborate?

    Or perhaps you are referring to a biological reason GE is not possible?
     
    Yes, I am referring to a biological reason. And I would love to elaborate, but it's kind of a lot to explain in a short comment. Every time I try to abbreviate it so that I can write it out in my brief moments of free time, most of the other commenters here call me an idiot.

    In short, as I have said before in several Sailer columns, I believe the current interpretation of genetics is largely pseudo-scientific. The basic idea is that the genome contains the information used for constructing a living organism---the "blueprint" of life. On that theory, genetic engineering seems possible. Change the information, change the organism.

    On the other hand, I say that the whole idea of genetic "information" is spurious. The genome serves the living creature as an organ of protein synthesis, and its operations under actual living conditions is quite variable. There is no simple correspondence between genetic patterns and expressed traits. The organism exerts a large measure of top-down control over how its protein-organ functions, as does the environment. Genetic engineering will never advance beyond parlor tricks like making Bt corn and luminescent rabbits.

    The "information" for making a living organism is not in the DNA, it is in the immaterial soul, which, per Aristotle, is "of it self and per se the form of the body." The DNA is, of course, entirely material and is really just part of the body. It does not stand to reason that you can change the essence of the creature by altering its DNA, any more than you could change its essence by plucking out its hair or cutting off its limbs. "Genetic engineering" is really just mutilation. Like other forms of mutilation (tail docking, for instance) it may have some accidentally beneficial side effects, but it is still just a brute example of accidental change.

    By these and similar arguments it is also proven that Darwinian evolution is impossible and did not in fact occur. An argument or thought process which simply assumes the Darwinian paradigm (i.e. evolutionary psychology) is thereby invalidated.

    I have a beef with Sailerites, HBDs, and PUAs and their continual reliance on pseudo-scientific crap, but my main argument is with the scientific community itself and its non-grasp of philosophical first principles.
  11. Two little girls and their father making funny faces and Fred, drunk-fuck inbred that HE is, depicts them as:

    “Appalachian white trash, presenting obvious neurological deficits consequent to inbreeding. A clear argument for eugenics.”

    Exactly what Fred, are you? Your region of Virginia where your folks spawned YOU isn’t exactly a genetic wonderland of diversity. The entire Virginia Piedmont region where Fredo comes from is what taught West Virginia how to BE West Virginia.

    I’ll watch for ANON7 to say now, “Aw, shucks, I wuzz only kee-iddin!”. I try to like Fred, but he hates his own race so these days.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anos
    The photo and article reviewer are an obvious joke. Unfortunately today people seem to have lost the ability to play any form of humor that involves some degree of subtlety.
    , @Ron Unz

    Two little girls and their father making funny faces and Fred, drunk-fuck inbred that HE is, depicts them as:

    “Appalachian white trash, presenting obvious neurological deficits consequent to inbreeding. A clear argument for eugenics.”

    Exactly what Fred, are you?...I’ll watch for ANON7 to say now, “Aw, shucks, I wuzz only kee-iddin!”. I try to like Fred, but he hates his own race so these days.
     
    Ha, ha, ha...

    You do realize, don't you, that you're looking at a photo of Fred Reed himself and his two young daughters?

    Ha, ha, ha....
    , @anon

    Your region of Virginia where your folks spawned YOU isn’t exactly a genetic wonderland of diversity. The entire Virginia Piedmont region where Fredo comes from is what taught West Virginia how to BE West Virginia.
     
    Shifflett
    , @Aaron Gross
    Mr. Christian, please report to the Sterilization Center immediately.
  12. @Jim Christian
    Two little girls and their father making funny faces and Fred, drunk-fuck inbred that HE is, depicts them as:

    "Appalachian white trash, presenting obvious neurological deficits consequent to inbreeding. A clear argument for eugenics."

    Exactly what Fred, are you? Your region of Virginia where your folks spawned YOU isn't exactly a genetic wonderland of diversity. The entire Virginia Piedmont region where Fredo comes from is what taught West Virginia how to BE West Virginia.

    I'll watch for ANON7 to say now, "Aw, shucks, I wuzz only kee-iddin!". I try to like Fred, but he hates his own race so these days.

    The photo and article reviewer are an obvious joke. Unfortunately today people seem to have lost the ability to play any form of humor that involves some degree of subtlety.

    Read More
  13. @Jim Christian
    Two little girls and their father making funny faces and Fred, drunk-fuck inbred that HE is, depicts them as:

    "Appalachian white trash, presenting obvious neurological deficits consequent to inbreeding. A clear argument for eugenics."

    Exactly what Fred, are you? Your region of Virginia where your folks spawned YOU isn't exactly a genetic wonderland of diversity. The entire Virginia Piedmont region where Fredo comes from is what taught West Virginia how to BE West Virginia.

    I'll watch for ANON7 to say now, "Aw, shucks, I wuzz only kee-iddin!". I try to like Fred, but he hates his own race so these days.

    Two little girls and their father making funny faces and Fred, drunk-fuck inbred that HE is, depicts them as:

    “Appalachian white trash, presenting obvious neurological deficits consequent to inbreeding. A clear argument for eugenics.”

    Exactly what Fred, are you?…I’ll watch for ANON7 to say now, “Aw, shucks, I wuzz only kee-iddin!”. I try to like Fred, but he hates his own race so these days.

    Ha, ha, ha…

    You do realize, don’t you, that you’re looking at a photo of Fred Reed himself and his two young daughters?

    Ha, ha, ha….

    Read More
    • Replies: @Truth

    You do realize, don’t you, that you’re looking at a photo of Fred Reed himself and his two young daughters?
     
    Oh boy, another classic moment brought to you by TAR....When your virtual mouth just isn't long enough to accommodate your virtual foot; there's always The Alt Right...
    , @Jim Christian
    Oh, and you assholes are so clever. Fred got me. At the end of the day, I was defending Fred against....HIMSELF! I never said I was smart, I'm ugly and I mean well, like everyone else. Like I said, I try to like the guy. I've bought and read all his books, Fred traveled with the cops on my old stomping grounds, DC, and wrote books about the experience.

    Now, you wise fucks better go back up your filthy sewers of a yap and go buy Fred's books, they're all online at Amazon.

    If you don't, you suck. Go fugg yesseffs.

    Hi Fred. I went to war for your picture, but I don't remember that pic in any of your books. Just a White guy making funny-faces with the kids. Ya trolled me, good job. You are my friend from afar, but you still piss me off. If you and Unzee are ever in Boston, ya like Lobsters and Lager? Keep me in mind. The rest yall? I got feathers for you assholes. Zip. Nuttin'.

    XOXO, Jim-Bob Knucklehead.

    , @edNels


    Well I don't know, but Fred and daughters are spoofing and mugging the same as we did as kids.
    I remember my Dad comming up the stairs and mugging almost the same face as Fred there, and that meant he didn't make any sales that day... Hell we could make the faces alright, that's real good humor too, talk about your subtety and stuff, but how do you gauge that? Humor is wonderful medicine... there's different forms of it.. but a little expression on the face can be funny, don't have to be wordy or rational to be understood.

    High IQ Mensa... great at Cross Word games not too good at Carpentry, or much.

    Will there be gene manipulations... Aldous wrote about it didn't he... (IOW's this is a given!), and those TV series, like the latter Star Treck where they sported Hybrid humanoid/lizard phenotypes 24/7 to the detriment of any script writing or plot development, that was in your face push for this kind of work, getting the peeps ready for the roll out, and more... and euthanization is not too far out either, even if it is by natural atrition... !! haha. (by which I mean, what about the possibilities that are aborted too by under funding... (under supporing... not going with the flow of somebody, (by which I mean: somebody might be left in the dust, for social political other reasons, who would have been the next... (jesus/ or what?))). put that in the Equation too, when you ''stir the pot''...
    , @Anonymous Coward
    Thing is, Unzo, Fred Reed habitually laughs loudly and derisively at anyone who mentions the Observed Reality that Jews might organize in any way, shape or form against the Gentile world. That's very alexjones-y of him. I think it's reasonable for an experienced observer to rather expect decerebrate distortions or outright nonsense to come from Fred Reed.

    If you're sitting around listening to Fred Reed, I think I have a few haha's lying around just for you.
  14. Both groups derive their outlooks from the same evidence–the world–and since there is not logical connection between the various traits, genetic causation seems probable.

    Bullshit. Dumbest thing I’ve read today.

    Liberals hold the values they hold because the liberal zeitgeist is controlled by a tight-knit religious sect of literal Satanists. Their religion might not make sense to you, but believe me when I say that it is a millenia-old tradition with its own theology and its own set of logical axioms.

    Meanwhile there is no such thing as a ‘conservative’. So-called ‘conservatives’ are simply people who hold the liberal values that were in fashion 50 years ago.

    (Does anybody really doubt that ‘conservatives’ in 2066 will pine for the good old days when men were men and opted for good old gay marriage instead of cohabitation with catamites?)

    Read More
  15. @Ron Unz

    Two little girls and their father making funny faces and Fred, drunk-fuck inbred that HE is, depicts them as:

    “Appalachian white trash, presenting obvious neurological deficits consequent to inbreeding. A clear argument for eugenics.”

    Exactly what Fred, are you?...I’ll watch for ANON7 to say now, “Aw, shucks, I wuzz only kee-iddin!”. I try to like Fred, but he hates his own race so these days.
     
    Ha, ha, ha...

    You do realize, don't you, that you're looking at a photo of Fred Reed himself and his two young daughters?

    Ha, ha, ha....

    You do realize, don’t you, that you’re looking at a photo of Fred Reed himself and his two young daughters?

    Oh boy, another classic moment brought to you by TAR….When your virtual mouth just isn’t long enough to accommodate your virtual foot; there’s always The Alt Right…

    Read More
  16. Somehow I suspect that the future will be plagued by fly-by-night genetic engineers. Just as today there’s quite a few fly-by-night organ harvesters, DVD/CD bootleggers, info system hackers, and what have you.

    From smoke signals to the intertubes, every technology that’s come along has been exploited by both the virtuous and the vicious, and by every sort between those two extremes – and vicious tech exploiters have never run out of suckers to scam.

    Add to that clusterf__k the lawyers rigging Who Owns Your DNA contracts, disclaimers, fine print, and what have you, and for most folks the future is going to a techno-legal minefield.

    Read More
  17. @Ron Unz

    Two little girls and their father making funny faces and Fred, drunk-fuck inbred that HE is, depicts them as:

    “Appalachian white trash, presenting obvious neurological deficits consequent to inbreeding. A clear argument for eugenics.”

    Exactly what Fred, are you?...I’ll watch for ANON7 to say now, “Aw, shucks, I wuzz only kee-iddin!”. I try to like Fred, but he hates his own race so these days.
     
    Ha, ha, ha...

    You do realize, don't you, that you're looking at a photo of Fred Reed himself and his two young daughters?

    Ha, ha, ha....

    Oh, and you assholes are so clever. Fred got me. At the end of the day, I was defending Fred against….HIMSELF! I never said I was smart, I’m ugly and I mean well, like everyone else. Like I said, I try to like the guy. I’ve bought and read all his books, Fred traveled with the cops on my old stomping grounds, DC, and wrote books about the experience.

    Now, you wise fucks better go back up your filthy sewers of a yap and go buy Fred’s books, they’re all online at Amazon.

    If you don’t, you suck. Go fugg yesseffs.

    Hi Fred. I went to war for your picture, but I don’t remember that pic in any of your books. Just a White guy making funny-faces with the kids. Ya trolled me, good job. You are my friend from afar, but you still piss me off. If you and Unzee are ever in Boston, ya like Lobsters and Lager? Keep me in mind. The rest yall? I got feathers for you assholes. Zip. Nuttin’.

    XOXO, Jim-Bob Knucklehead.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jus' Sayin'...
    Sometimes after one has been humiliated it is better for one to retire quietly from the field with whatever tattered shreds of dignity one has remaining.
  18. @John Jeremiah Smith

    However, they would be “extremely, extremely” bright – but come to think of it, what proportion of MENSA members are also high achievers in life? My hunch is the percentage is not so great.
     
    Okay, so put your money on the dumbasses winning the contest. You will lose. It is the dumbasses who fight the contest, but it’s the smart ones who reap the benefits of power.

    You totally miss the point I was trying to make; rather as the wry humor of the picture didn’t register with Mr Christian back there!

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith

    You totally miss the point I was trying to make; rather as the wry humor of the picture didn’t register with Mr Christian back there!
     
    Insufficient signaling on your part, Mack. We are not old acquaintances, and in this environment -- populated with the full range -- you'd best be a tad heavy with sarcasm, satire, parody, etc.
    , @Jim Christian
    Don't even know when ya been trolled, do ya? Back there, as you put it. Spend a lot of time in the rear view?
  19. @Stealth
    Bring on the organ cloning and nerve splicing/repair, I say.

    Meanwhile, isn't there something we can do about this matter of humans being unable to produce our own vitamin C?

    Bring on the organ cloning and nerve splicing/repair, I say.

    that’s the easy part

    the difficult ethical questions come when people start demanding sons over daughters

    smarts over dullards

    strong children vs. weaklings, once that kind of thing can be chosen

    what about blending the DNA of a narwhal with a horse and making an “unicorn”, just for the fun of it, so some Russian oligarch can give it to his daughter for her birthday?

    there’s a whole range of possibilities…

    we know they’re cloning animals and blending human and animal DNA, what are they doing that we don’t know about, is the question.

    http://www.indymedia.org.uk/images/2008/05/399344.jpg

    Read More
    • Replies: @sayless
    They'll create hatcheries for girls so that there will be enough to go around.

    Also, preserves for Heirlooms. (Will command a high price!)
  20. @macilrae
    You totally miss the point I was trying to make; rather as the wry humor of the picture didn't register with Mr Christian back there!

    You totally miss the point I was trying to make; rather as the wry humor of the picture didn’t register with Mr Christian back there!

    Insufficient signaling on your part, Mack. We are not old acquaintances, and in this environment — populated with the full range — you’d best be a tad heavy with sarcasm, satire, parody, etc.

    Read More
  21. @Intelligent Dasein
    I often seen the sentiment expressed in these comments that Fred had only a half a dozen columns that he endlessly recycled. Now I know it is true.

    We've seen this crap before, and it still isn't going to happen. There will be no genetic engineering. Not now, not ever.

    There will be no genetic engineering. Not now, not ever.

    ever heard of Monsanto?

    “Within the past couple of years, Chinese scientists have set out to infuse dairy cows with certain human genes so that they could basically start producing milk with the same advantageous qualities as human breast milk.”

    http://www.conservationinstitute.org/8-bizarre-examples-of-genetic-engineering-in-animals/

    this is just the tip of the iceberg that we know about

    there are labs all over the world that are blazing trails with this stuff without any oversight or restrictions other than their own imaginations

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8GRQHsAVjI

    (RIP)

    Read More
  22. @Stealth
    Good - that is all.

    Actually, it's not all. I look forward to the day when relatively common medical conditions caused by mutations in single genes can be virtually eliminated by screening and the genetic engineering of embryos. Who knows? After that, maybe scientists could tackle maladies like glaucoma, AMD, and rheumatoid arthritis. So many people say they're afraid of humanity "playing God," but most of these folks are healthy and likewise blessed with healthy family members. I, on the other hand, am all for genetic engineering as long as it's used for the betterment of humanity. We're a rickety species.

    Besides, presuming we don't wreck the biosphere and suffer an extreme population reduction, we'll probably need eugenics (the good kind) and genetic engineering to hold back the degradation of our gene pool.

    I'll even go so far as to say that "designer babies," if they materialize, will most likely be a good development. Imagine a world in which children no longer must worry about myopia, malocclusion, asthma, deafness, sunburn, having insufficient room for wisdom teeth, depression, chronic sinusitis, etc.

    “I’ll even go so far as to say that “designer babies,” if they materialize, will most likely be a good development. Imagine a world in which children no longer must worry about myopia, malocclusion, asthma, deafness, sunburn, having insufficient room for wisdom teeth, depression, chronic sinusitis, etc.”

    How will the world sustain such a radical increase in population? How will food and energy resources be develop to ensure quality of life? Those are two monumental issues that bio-ethicists discuss regarding the impact of genetic engineering.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stealth
    In the western world, overpopulation would be taken care of by falling birthrates - if not for immigration.

    I'm not calling for a cure for mortality, or even doubling human lifespans. I would just like to reduce the level of genetically rooted misery.
  23. Gene editing on human embryos will be expensive and risky for quite a while. So it will be limited to the upper classes, and could conceivably give them an iron grip on the world. What the rest of humanity will think of such exclusivity is open to speculation.

    Read More
  24. @Rurik

    Bring on the organ cloning and nerve splicing/repair, I say.
     
    that's the easy part

    the difficult ethical questions come when people start demanding sons over daughters

    smarts over dullards

    strong children vs. weaklings, once that kind of thing can be chosen

    what about blending the DNA of a narwhal with a horse and making an "unicorn", just for the fun of it, so some Russian oligarch can give it to his daughter for her birthday?

    there's a whole range of possibilities...

    we know they're cloning animals and blending human and animal DNA, what are they doing that we don't know about, is the question.

    http://www.indymedia.org.uk/images/2008/05/399344.jpg

    They’ll create hatcheries for girls so that there will be enough to go around.

    Also, preserves for Heirlooms. (Will command a high price!)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik
    http://s1.ibtimes.com/sites/www.ibtimes.com/files/styles/v2_article_large/public/2013/08/13/perfect.jpg
  25. @Corvinus
    "I’ll even go so far as to say that “designer babies,” if they materialize, will most likely be a good development. Imagine a world in which children no longer must worry about myopia, malocclusion, asthma, deafness, sunburn, having insufficient room for wisdom teeth, depression, chronic sinusitis, etc."

    How will the world sustain such a radical increase in population? How will food and energy resources be develop to ensure quality of life? Those are two monumental issues that bio-ethicists discuss regarding the impact of genetic engineering.

    In the western world, overpopulation would be taken care of by falling birthrates – if not for immigration.

    I’m not calling for a cure for mortality, or even doubling human lifespans. I would just like to reduce the level of genetically rooted misery.

    Read More
  26. anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Jim Christian
    Two little girls and their father making funny faces and Fred, drunk-fuck inbred that HE is, depicts them as:

    "Appalachian white trash, presenting obvious neurological deficits consequent to inbreeding. A clear argument for eugenics."

    Exactly what Fred, are you? Your region of Virginia where your folks spawned YOU isn't exactly a genetic wonderland of diversity. The entire Virginia Piedmont region where Fredo comes from is what taught West Virginia how to BE West Virginia.

    I'll watch for ANON7 to say now, "Aw, shucks, I wuzz only kee-iddin!". I try to like Fred, but he hates his own race so these days.

    Your region of Virginia where your folks spawned YOU isn’t exactly a genetic wonderland of diversity. The entire Virginia Piedmont region where Fredo comes from is what taught West Virginia how to BE West Virginia.

    Shifflett

    Read More
  27. @The Anti-Gnostic
    Can you elaborate?

    I can see sort of a "Great Filter" hypothesis here. The technological advantage and knowledge base will first be deployed to make everybody fat, dumb and happy. Then the Idiocracy will collapse into semi-barbarism and nobody will know about genetics much less how to engineer genes. Like how we no longer have the civilizational capacity for manned, extra-orbital space travel.

    Or perhaps you are referring to a biological reason GE is not possible?

    Can you elaborate?

    Or perhaps you are referring to a biological reason GE is not possible?

    Yes, I am referring to a biological reason. And I would love to elaborate, but it’s kind of a lot to explain in a short comment. Every time I try to abbreviate it so that I can write it out in my brief moments of free time, most of the other commenters here call me an idiot.

    In short, as I have said before in several Sailer columns, I believe the current interpretation of genetics is largely pseudo-scientific. The basic idea is that the genome contains the information used for constructing a living organism—the “blueprint” of life. On that theory, genetic engineering seems possible. Change the information, change the organism.

    On the other hand, I say that the whole idea of genetic “information” is spurious. The genome serves the living creature as an organ of protein synthesis, and its operations under actual living conditions is quite variable. There is no simple correspondence between genetic patterns and expressed traits. The organism exerts a large measure of top-down control over how its protein-organ functions, as does the environment. Genetic engineering will never advance beyond parlor tricks like making Bt corn and luminescent rabbits.

    The “information” for making a living organism is not in the DNA, it is in the immaterial soul, which, per Aristotle, is “of it self and per se the form of the body.” The DNA is, of course, entirely material and is really just part of the body. It does not stand to reason that you can change the essence of the creature by altering its DNA, any more than you could change its essence by plucking out its hair or cutting off its limbs. “Genetic engineering” is really just mutilation. Like other forms of mutilation (tail docking, for instance) it may have some accidentally beneficial side effects, but it is still just a brute example of accidental change.

    By these and similar arguments it is also proven that Darwinian evolution is impossible and did not in fact occur. An argument or thought process which simply assumes the Darwinian paradigm (i.e. evolutionary psychology) is thereby invalidated.

    I have a beef with Sailerites, HBDs, and PUAs and their continual reliance on pseudo-scientific crap, but my main argument is with the scientific community itself and its non-grasp of philosophical first principles.

    Read More
    • Disagree: MEH 0910
    • Replies: @Talha
    Hey ID,

    So the genome sequencing explains all the composite parts of, say, an airplane however it does not necessarily explain how those parts are then assembled nor their complex interactivity to produce a functional flying machine...am I right? I similarly find that to be the problem.

    Peace.
    , @John Jeremiah Smith

    my main argument is with the scientific community itself and its non-grasp of philosophical first principles.
     
    And my main argument with you, if I bothered to argue with someone who professes faith in Aristotelian hoo-hoo about "immaterial soul", is that you appear to have a misunderstanding of genetics (or what you are calling "genetics").
    , @Rurik
    Hey Intelligent Dasein,

    There is no simple correspondence between genetic patterns and expressed traits.
     
    huh? What do you think makes a man a man? Or a dog a dog? Or traits like eye color or height or even intelligence or a love of music. These things are all determined and effected by our DNA.

    The organism exerts a large measure of top-down control over how its protein-organ functions,
     
    huh? Do I tell my DNA what to do? Or does it tell me?

    OK, real quick. Every single cell in every living thing has a DNA molecule at it's nucleus, or core. That DNA molecule tells that cell what to do (how to be what it is). Whether or not it's going to be a human neuron in a human brain, or a chimpanzee's fingernail, down to the lowliest DNA of a virus, every cell, of every living thing, are all doing the functions of a living cell depending on what the DNA molecule tells them how to be that living cell. Blood cell, brain cell, down to grass and bacteria. We're all determined by what's inside our DNA.

    We don't wake up one day, and decide we're going to be a giraffe or a genius. If we have the DNA of a Eskimo, that that's what we're going to be. And every single cell in our body, are all acting the way they do to make an Eskimo and Eskimo, because of the design of that DNA.

    Now, was that design a product of billions of years of evolution, resulting from some fortuitous accident of some amino acids serendipitously aligning into a double helix because of the nature of our atmosphere and a lucky strike of lightning at the right moment, fusing these four amino acids into a kind of self-replicating organism, or was this design an act of volition from a God or Gods or extra terrestrial aliens, for instance?

    Personally, I don't know the answer to that question, but I also have doubts when anyone claims to know for sure. That knowledge is kind of like death, we won't know what it's like until we get there (or until the aliens make themselves known and explain it all). But the idea that our genetic identity is a top-down arrangement, with the soul in charge, is rather silly, I should think. If you have the DNA of a cat, that's what you're going to be, and how you're going to act. If you have the DNA of an Eskimo, that what you're going to be and how you're going to act. Tree, bat, spider or human with a disposition towards spirituality, (like me ; )

    The “information” for making a living organism is not in the DNA, it is in the immaterial soul,
     
    this is, simply wrong

    It does not stand to reason that you can change the essence of the creature by altering its DNA
     
    this is where it gets interesting!

    our aging process is not due to our cells wearing out. It's due to our DNA telling our cells to wear out after a certain time period. There really is no reason why we shouldn't be able to tweak these DNA molecules to tell the cells to simply keep replicating forever, as if you were a perpetual 30 yr. old. This is where it gets scary, because I'm absolutely certain that this is were most of the private money is being spent on research. In labs all over the third world, were a bribe can easily keep the authorities far away.

    Imagine what life on earth would be like if men like Rothschild and Soros could live forever.

    Because as we humans tweak 'God's' building blocks, we surly are not going to use the things that are built to augment human happiness, not hardly. Just the opposite in fact, and why? Because we all have as humans our baboon-like genes from a more ancient time. And it's these genes that make us want to dominate others, and gain advantage and see our rivals humiliated or slaughtered. We are, even as we tweak our own DNA, still only savage primates at core, who, based on everything we see unfolding in the world today, act in ways that are even worse than our more primitive cousins, the other great apes - who weren't touched by God. (like we were ; )
    , @Jason Liu
    Even if the connection between intelligence and genetics is only the distant product of protein synthesis, that wouldn't stop people from trying. It's bioethics that's in the way.
    , @biz
    The problem with your dualism is that we empirically see a direct pathway from genes to proteins to function in every organism from bacteria to tobacco plants to fruit flies to dogs to humans. We can literally change the form and function of organisms by changing the DNA. To posit an immortal soul that is actually pulling the strings behind the scenes means that either every single one of the 10^20 bacteria that has every lived, and every one of the blue-green algae and every one of the tobacco plants, also has an immortal soul, or that at some point on the the tree of life (dogs? lemurs? apes? Neanderthals?) a soul was introduced to do what previously molecules alone could.
    , @Jus' Sayin'...
    Basically your arguing from revelation, divine, Aristotelian, whatever. Your naive "Aristototelian" analysis would be ripped to shreds in an intro class in Aristotelian philosophy. I remember enough from my freshman course in Aristotle's Metaphysics, taught by Professor Diamandopolous, at Brandeis University, to recognize that. And you've not kept up even with the popularized accounts of what is going on in genomic research these days. So, yes, I am going to dismiss you as an ignorant fool on these topics. Ignorant because you expose yourself as such with every word you've written. And a fool because you do not recognize your own ignorance. I don't know why I even wasted my time writing this.
    , @Diogenes
    This misunderstands Aristotle. For Aristotle, every human being's essence or substantial form -- hereafter, simply "the soul" -- functions the same way with respect to proximate matter, e.g. cells, protons, etc. More precisely, every x and y such that x is a human's soul and y is a human's soul are such that for any possible configuration of proximate matter P, if x and y were confronted with P, x would organize P just the same way as y would organize P. Were this not the case, for Aristotle, human beings would not form a common species: it's precisely sameness in essence that guarantees sameness of predication of species. (Denying this also raises numerous problems in theology for Aristotelian Christians, but that's neither here nor there.)

    So, what's the upshot? The upshot is that I, or anybody else, could have been basically like Einstein if we had the right proximate materials at our disposal at conception. And if *that's* the case, then, given just how much mixing and matching of genetic materials we can observe through ordinary reproduction to be enformable / ensoulable, surely it's possible to jack up people's IQs, extend their lifespans, give them great athletic abilities, etc. At the very least it's probable that it's possible.

    I don't really understand why anyone would be an Aristotelian these days, though. The arguments for Aristotelianism aren't very good, and the deliverances of the sciences are much more what you would expect on a loosely Democritean or Cartesian philosophy of nature than on hylomorphism. There's a reason Aristotelianism is largely the province of unduly haughty papists.
  28. “… men of thirty get into bar fights and women don’t.”

    Fred, you’ve betrayed your Appalachian roots by hanging out in too many Hoighty Toighty watering holes … come back to you roots at the Dew Drop Inn, where the babes give as good as they get.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Son of Dixie
    Fred is a turncoat. He is an honorary Mexican now, saddled down with a Mexican wife and her children that were sired by a Mexican man.
    When the wall goes up we can only hope Fred is no longer allowed in the US, and our tax dollars he collects are redistributed to White families in the United States.
  29. “China” and “eugenics” always seem to go hand in hand — and, despite his apparent tongue-in-cheekness, Fred Reed makes the same, dead serious association. But I’ve never seen a more poignant description of what now seems like an inseparable dyad than Eugenics: A Reassessment (2001), in which Richard Lynn makes the following predictions (my paraphrase) in the apotheotic conclusion of the book:

    Having achieved parity with Superpower Europe around 2050 (the US will have already fallen by the wayside, into a Latin-Americanesque pit of dysgenic mediocrity), and supremacy in the following decades, China will then establish an autocratic world state in which positive and negative eugenic programs will be imposed on a global scale. The Chinese will see to it that the remaining European elites will be cloned in order to preserve genetic diversity and creativity; they will develop new genes to improve intelligence and replace natural selection with human selection, a process which will culminate in the birthing of a new human species – a species which will then go on to colonize other planets in solar systems beyond our own.

    China will only be able to reach these now unfathomable achievements because it will be the only state that will be willing to engage in a serious, all-out eugenics program.

    This coming World Eugenic State (WES) mandated by China will be the inevitable result of Francis Galton’s 1909 prediction that “the nation which first subjects itself to a rational eugenical discipline is bound to inherit the earth” (the quote with which he ends the whole book…).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Perhaps, but all historic attempts are force-birthing a utopia (heaven on earth) have ended in colossal failures and usually given us a glimpse of hell. Daesh is trying out its version right now. The Chinese have a very long spiritual tradition (and recent experience with attempted 'utopia' under Mao) that should serve as a warning against any such foolish attempts to control the destiny of man or bridge the gap between heaven and earth. If that is not enough then they'll probably unleash a new version of hell upon themselves and everyone else until they relearn the lesson.

    Peace.

    , @Jus' Sayin'...
    If what you suggest is true, the Chinese ruling elites are probably making a disastrous mistake.

    We have come a very long way since Watson and Crick determined the structure and basic functionality of DNA. However, it's only recently that we've begun to understand even a fraction of the complexity of genomic expression, e.g., epigenetic suppression and amplification. It's a little bit early to be mucking around in the details of the human genome. For instance, there are scores of alleles implicated in determining how high an individual may test on an IQ test. These likely interact with one another and with other alleles in complex and right now totally undiscovered ways. It's entirely possible that altering some of these alleles in an attempt to enhance IQ may actually lower it or introduce life-threatening genetic disorders. And we don't even understand intelligence that well. What if tinkering with IQ affects some subtler form of intelligence in a devastating and irreparable way?

    Also, the evolutionary process has been operating in humans for some 200,000 years. It's hard to argue with the empirical "wisdom" inherent in both natural selection and moderate sexual and cultural selection. Many alleles that we think are harmful to the individual may protect that individual or even the clades containing that allele in ways we cannot yet appreciate. It is conceivable the Chinese could improve some subset of their population, only to see that subset eradicated in an outbreak of sweating sickness.
  30. @Intelligent Dasein

    Can you elaborate?

    Or perhaps you are referring to a biological reason GE is not possible?
     
    Yes, I am referring to a biological reason. And I would love to elaborate, but it's kind of a lot to explain in a short comment. Every time I try to abbreviate it so that I can write it out in my brief moments of free time, most of the other commenters here call me an idiot.

    In short, as I have said before in several Sailer columns, I believe the current interpretation of genetics is largely pseudo-scientific. The basic idea is that the genome contains the information used for constructing a living organism---the "blueprint" of life. On that theory, genetic engineering seems possible. Change the information, change the organism.

    On the other hand, I say that the whole idea of genetic "information" is spurious. The genome serves the living creature as an organ of protein synthesis, and its operations under actual living conditions is quite variable. There is no simple correspondence between genetic patterns and expressed traits. The organism exerts a large measure of top-down control over how its protein-organ functions, as does the environment. Genetic engineering will never advance beyond parlor tricks like making Bt corn and luminescent rabbits.

    The "information" for making a living organism is not in the DNA, it is in the immaterial soul, which, per Aristotle, is "of it self and per se the form of the body." The DNA is, of course, entirely material and is really just part of the body. It does not stand to reason that you can change the essence of the creature by altering its DNA, any more than you could change its essence by plucking out its hair or cutting off its limbs. "Genetic engineering" is really just mutilation. Like other forms of mutilation (tail docking, for instance) it may have some accidentally beneficial side effects, but it is still just a brute example of accidental change.

    By these and similar arguments it is also proven that Darwinian evolution is impossible and did not in fact occur. An argument or thought process which simply assumes the Darwinian paradigm (i.e. evolutionary psychology) is thereby invalidated.

    I have a beef with Sailerites, HBDs, and PUAs and their continual reliance on pseudo-scientific crap, but my main argument is with the scientific community itself and its non-grasp of philosophical first principles.

    Hey ID,

    So the genome sequencing explains all the composite parts of, say, an airplane however it does not necessarily explain how those parts are then assembled nor their complex interactivity to produce a functional flying machine…am I right? I similarly find that to be the problem.

    Peace.

    Read More
  31. @Intelligent Dasein

    Can you elaborate?

    Or perhaps you are referring to a biological reason GE is not possible?
     
    Yes, I am referring to a biological reason. And I would love to elaborate, but it's kind of a lot to explain in a short comment. Every time I try to abbreviate it so that I can write it out in my brief moments of free time, most of the other commenters here call me an idiot.

    In short, as I have said before in several Sailer columns, I believe the current interpretation of genetics is largely pseudo-scientific. The basic idea is that the genome contains the information used for constructing a living organism---the "blueprint" of life. On that theory, genetic engineering seems possible. Change the information, change the organism.

    On the other hand, I say that the whole idea of genetic "information" is spurious. The genome serves the living creature as an organ of protein synthesis, and its operations under actual living conditions is quite variable. There is no simple correspondence between genetic patterns and expressed traits. The organism exerts a large measure of top-down control over how its protein-organ functions, as does the environment. Genetic engineering will never advance beyond parlor tricks like making Bt corn and luminescent rabbits.

    The "information" for making a living organism is not in the DNA, it is in the immaterial soul, which, per Aristotle, is "of it self and per se the form of the body." The DNA is, of course, entirely material and is really just part of the body. It does not stand to reason that you can change the essence of the creature by altering its DNA, any more than you could change its essence by plucking out its hair or cutting off its limbs. "Genetic engineering" is really just mutilation. Like other forms of mutilation (tail docking, for instance) it may have some accidentally beneficial side effects, but it is still just a brute example of accidental change.

    By these and similar arguments it is also proven that Darwinian evolution is impossible and did not in fact occur. An argument or thought process which simply assumes the Darwinian paradigm (i.e. evolutionary psychology) is thereby invalidated.

    I have a beef with Sailerites, HBDs, and PUAs and their continual reliance on pseudo-scientific crap, but my main argument is with the scientific community itself and its non-grasp of philosophical first principles.

    my main argument is with the scientific community itself and its non-grasp of philosophical first principles.

    And my main argument with you, if I bothered to argue with someone who professes faith in Aristotelian hoo-hoo about “immaterial soul”, is that you appear to have a misunderstanding of genetics (or what you are calling “genetics”).

    Read More
  32. @Fin of a Cobra
    "China" and "eugenics" always seem to go hand in hand -- and, despite his apparent tongue-in-cheekness, Fred Reed makes the same, dead serious association. But I've never seen a more poignant description of what now seems like an inseparable dyad than Eugenics: A Reassessment (2001), in which Richard Lynn makes the following predictions (my paraphrase) in the apotheotic conclusion of the book:

    Having achieved parity with Superpower Europe around 2050 (the US will have already fallen by the wayside, into a Latin-Americanesque pit of dysgenic mediocrity), and supremacy in the following decades, China will then establish an autocratic world state in which positive and negative eugenic programs will be imposed on a global scale. The Chinese will see to it that the remaining European elites will be cloned in order to preserve genetic diversity and creativity; they will develop new genes to improve intelligence and replace natural selection with human selection, a process which will culminate in the birthing of a new human species – a species which will then go on to colonize other planets in solar systems beyond our own.

    China will only be able to reach these now unfathomable achievements because it will be the only state that will be willing to engage in a serious, all-out eugenics program.

    This coming World Eugenic State (WES) mandated by China will be the inevitable result of Francis Galton's 1909 prediction that “the nation which first subjects itself to a rational eugenical discipline is bound to inherit the earth” (the quote with which he ends the whole book...).

    Perhaps, but all historic attempts are force-birthing a utopia (heaven on earth) have ended in colossal failures and usually given us a glimpse of hell. Daesh is trying out its version right now. The Chinese have a very long spiritual tradition (and recent experience with attempted ‘utopia’ under Mao) that should serve as a warning against any such foolish attempts to control the destiny of man or bridge the gap between heaven and earth. If that is not enough then they’ll probably unleash a new version of hell upon themselves and everyone else until they relearn the lesson.

    Peace.

    Read More
  33. @Intelligent Dasein

    Can you elaborate?

    Or perhaps you are referring to a biological reason GE is not possible?
     
    Yes, I am referring to a biological reason. And I would love to elaborate, but it's kind of a lot to explain in a short comment. Every time I try to abbreviate it so that I can write it out in my brief moments of free time, most of the other commenters here call me an idiot.

    In short, as I have said before in several Sailer columns, I believe the current interpretation of genetics is largely pseudo-scientific. The basic idea is that the genome contains the information used for constructing a living organism---the "blueprint" of life. On that theory, genetic engineering seems possible. Change the information, change the organism.

    On the other hand, I say that the whole idea of genetic "information" is spurious. The genome serves the living creature as an organ of protein synthesis, and its operations under actual living conditions is quite variable. There is no simple correspondence between genetic patterns and expressed traits. The organism exerts a large measure of top-down control over how its protein-organ functions, as does the environment. Genetic engineering will never advance beyond parlor tricks like making Bt corn and luminescent rabbits.

    The "information" for making a living organism is not in the DNA, it is in the immaterial soul, which, per Aristotle, is "of it self and per se the form of the body." The DNA is, of course, entirely material and is really just part of the body. It does not stand to reason that you can change the essence of the creature by altering its DNA, any more than you could change its essence by plucking out its hair or cutting off its limbs. "Genetic engineering" is really just mutilation. Like other forms of mutilation (tail docking, for instance) it may have some accidentally beneficial side effects, but it is still just a brute example of accidental change.

    By these and similar arguments it is also proven that Darwinian evolution is impossible and did not in fact occur. An argument or thought process which simply assumes the Darwinian paradigm (i.e. evolutionary psychology) is thereby invalidated.

    I have a beef with Sailerites, HBDs, and PUAs and their continual reliance on pseudo-scientific crap, but my main argument is with the scientific community itself and its non-grasp of philosophical first principles.

    Hey Intelligent Dasein,

    There is no simple correspondence between genetic patterns and expressed traits.

    huh? What do you think makes a man a man? Or a dog a dog? Or traits like eye color or height or even intelligence or a love of music. These things are all determined and effected by our DNA.

    The organism exerts a large measure of top-down control over how its protein-organ functions,

    huh? Do I tell my DNA what to do? Or does it tell me?

    OK, real quick. Every single cell in every living thing has a DNA molecule at it’s nucleus, or core. That DNA molecule tells that cell what to do (how to be what it is). Whether or not it’s going to be a human neuron in a human brain, or a chimpanzee’s fingernail, down to the lowliest DNA of a virus, every cell, of every living thing, are all doing the functions of a living cell depending on what the DNA molecule tells them how to be that living cell. Blood cell, brain cell, down to grass and bacteria. We’re all determined by what’s inside our DNA.

    We don’t wake up one day, and decide we’re going to be a giraffe or a genius. If we have the DNA of a Eskimo, that that’s what we’re going to be. And every single cell in our body, are all acting the way they do to make an Eskimo and Eskimo, because of the design of that DNA.

    Now, was that design a product of billions of years of evolution, resulting from some fortuitous accident of some amino acids serendipitously aligning into a double helix because of the nature of our atmosphere and a lucky strike of lightning at the right moment, fusing these four amino acids into a kind of self-replicating organism, or was this design an act of volition from a God or Gods or extra terrestrial aliens, for instance?

    Personally, I don’t know the answer to that question, but I also have doubts when anyone claims to know for sure. That knowledge is kind of like death, we won’t know what it’s like until we get there (or until the aliens make themselves known and explain it all). But the idea that our genetic identity is a top-down arrangement, with the soul in charge, is rather silly, I should think. If you have the DNA of a cat, that’s what you’re going to be, and how you’re going to act. If you have the DNA of an Eskimo, that what you’re going to be and how you’re going to act. Tree, bat, spider or human with a disposition towards spirituality, (like me ; )

    The “information” for making a living organism is not in the DNA, it is in the immaterial soul,

    this is, simply wrong

    It does not stand to reason that you can change the essence of the creature by altering its DNA

    this is where it gets interesting!

    our aging process is not due to our cells wearing out. It’s due to our DNA telling our cells to wear out after a certain time period. There really is no reason why we shouldn’t be able to tweak these DNA molecules to tell the cells to simply keep replicating forever, as if you were a perpetual 30 yr. old. This is where it gets scary, because I’m absolutely certain that this is were most of the private money is being spent on research. In labs all over the third world, were a bribe can easily keep the authorities far away.

    Imagine what life on earth would be like if men like Rothschild and Soros could live forever.

    Because as we humans tweak ‘God’s’ building blocks, we surly are not going to use the things that are built to augment human happiness, not hardly. Just the opposite in fact, and why? Because we all have as humans our baboon-like genes from a more ancient time. And it’s these genes that make us want to dominate others, and gain advantage and see our rivals humiliated or slaughtered. We are, even as we tweak our own DNA, still only savage primates at core, who, based on everything we see unfolding in the world today, act in ways that are even worse than our more primitive cousins, the other great apes – who weren’t touched by God. (like we were ; )

    Read More
    • Replies: @Fred Reed
    "OK, real quick. Every single cell in every living thing has a DNA molecule at it’s nucleus, or core."

    Mature human erythrocytes?
  34. Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle wrote THE MOTE IN GOD’S EYE and its sequel THE GRIPPING HAND. These two s/f novels cover this topic, among other things, and might be worth your time. MOTE was about first contact with an alien race that practiced genetic experimentation on itself. The sequel took this topic further but from the human point of view. Both of them were cracking good adventure stories, too.

    Read More
  35. There is lots of media hype over using bio-engineering to design other people (e.g. kids). What is more useful to me is using bio-engineering (SENS) to redesign myself, that is to eliminate the aging process. Its the aging process I want to cure myself of. Then, of course, I want to increase my cognitive ability. I’m not interested in making designer babies. I think most people think as I do with regards to this.

    Read More
  36. @The Alarmist

    "... men of thirty get into bar fights and women don’t."
     
    Fred, you've betrayed your Appalachian roots by hanging out in too many Hoighty Toighty watering holes ... come back to you roots at the Dew Drop Inn, where the babes give as good as they get.

    Fred is a turncoat. He is an honorary Mexican now, saddled down with a Mexican wife and her children that were sired by a Mexican man.
    When the wall goes up we can only hope Fred is no longer allowed in the US, and our tax dollars he collects are redistributed to White families in the United States.

    Read More
  37. @Jim Christian
    Two little girls and their father making funny faces and Fred, drunk-fuck inbred that HE is, depicts them as:

    "Appalachian white trash, presenting obvious neurological deficits consequent to inbreeding. A clear argument for eugenics."

    Exactly what Fred, are you? Your region of Virginia where your folks spawned YOU isn't exactly a genetic wonderland of diversity. The entire Virginia Piedmont region where Fredo comes from is what taught West Virginia how to BE West Virginia.

    I'll watch for ANON7 to say now, "Aw, shucks, I wuzz only kee-iddin!". I try to like Fred, but he hates his own race so these days.

    Mr. Christian, please report to the Sterilization Center immediately.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jim Christian
    Ha-Haaaaa! All taken care of. I had one daughter, was forced into a "Not Haaaaaapy" divorce.And so I was unleashed upon Bill Clinton's Washington, in a time where every woman was straining to unleash her "inner Monica Lewinski". Tore up my husband card, got a vasectomy right away, upgraded my motorcycles and cut a fair swath through the single world in DC, circa 1992-2008. It was a grand time, good economy, the women weren't all fat and tatted, had a really good time.

    I raised my kid right, two boyfriends her whole life, she's Computer Science grad, married her college sweetie at 23, preggars with my grandkid at 24 they make a ton of dough and he's from a wealthy family, too. I am at peace with my one. Sorry to one and all, MY genetic lineup is going onward and upward. And, three of my siblings all have children, and THOSE all having/had many babies.

    Again, my apologies, we are a fecund bunch of Christians. Half-Greek, the, just the good half.

    Like I said, I'm ugly, but I mean well. Happy Labor Day all. Mustn't forget those who labor for us all.
  38. Remember when computers were exotic? When only Dick Tracy had the two-way wrist radio?

    I wonder, what’s the median age of unz.com readers?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bill Jones
    "I wonder, what’s the median age of unz.com readers?"

    42.5. years

    50% 5 year olds, 50% 80.

  39. @macilrae
    You totally miss the point I was trying to make; rather as the wry humor of the picture didn't register with Mr Christian back there!

    Don’t even know when ya been trolled, do ya? Back there, as you put it. Spend a lot of time in the rear view?

    Read More
  40. Skynet or Bionet?

    Why not both?

    Starkes Herz, starker Stahl.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bill Jones
    "Why not both? "

    We got both of the big fears of Orwell and Huxley.
  41. @Intelligent Dasein

    Can you elaborate?

    Or perhaps you are referring to a biological reason GE is not possible?
     
    Yes, I am referring to a biological reason. And I would love to elaborate, but it's kind of a lot to explain in a short comment. Every time I try to abbreviate it so that I can write it out in my brief moments of free time, most of the other commenters here call me an idiot.

    In short, as I have said before in several Sailer columns, I believe the current interpretation of genetics is largely pseudo-scientific. The basic idea is that the genome contains the information used for constructing a living organism---the "blueprint" of life. On that theory, genetic engineering seems possible. Change the information, change the organism.

    On the other hand, I say that the whole idea of genetic "information" is spurious. The genome serves the living creature as an organ of protein synthesis, and its operations under actual living conditions is quite variable. There is no simple correspondence between genetic patterns and expressed traits. The organism exerts a large measure of top-down control over how its protein-organ functions, as does the environment. Genetic engineering will never advance beyond parlor tricks like making Bt corn and luminescent rabbits.

    The "information" for making a living organism is not in the DNA, it is in the immaterial soul, which, per Aristotle, is "of it self and per se the form of the body." The DNA is, of course, entirely material and is really just part of the body. It does not stand to reason that you can change the essence of the creature by altering its DNA, any more than you could change its essence by plucking out its hair or cutting off its limbs. "Genetic engineering" is really just mutilation. Like other forms of mutilation (tail docking, for instance) it may have some accidentally beneficial side effects, but it is still just a brute example of accidental change.

    By these and similar arguments it is also proven that Darwinian evolution is impossible and did not in fact occur. An argument or thought process which simply assumes the Darwinian paradigm (i.e. evolutionary psychology) is thereby invalidated.

    I have a beef with Sailerites, HBDs, and PUAs and their continual reliance on pseudo-scientific crap, but my main argument is with the scientific community itself and its non-grasp of philosophical first principles.

    Even if the connection between intelligence and genetics is only the distant product of protein synthesis, that wouldn’t stop people from trying. It’s bioethics that’s in the way.

    Read More
  42. Genetic engineering.

    Two trees: one of knowledge of good and evil, one of life.

    Man seized knowledge of good and evil in the garden and was therefore denied the “tree of life” lest they become like “gods”.

    Man now is on the cusp of seizing the “tree of life”, and when that happens it will bring on the apocalypse.

    I read this on the net in a series of articles, always struck me as extraordinary, and convincing. Would not be surprised if it was true.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous
    “Do you know, daughter, who you are, And who I am? If you know these two things, you will be blessed. You are she is not; whereas I am He who is. Have this knowledge in you and the enemy will never deceive you…“

    As distilled by St. Catherine of Siena: I'm God; you're not.

    Best of luck to mankind and his GE, he'll need it.
  43. @BigBlueArseOfNeptune
    Looking at the projected African population growth, and further noting the West no longer has the will to keep out invading masses...it’s hard not to hope that genetic engineering for intelligence could end up being the only thing saving humanity from a cognitive apocalypse that destroys civilization.

    Looking at the projected African population growth, and further noting the West no longer has the will to keep out invading masses…it’s hard not to hope that genetic engineering for intelligence could end up being the only thing saving humanity from a cognitive apocalypse that destroys civilization.

    The problem is that the social elites who will be doing the genetic engineering are today’s Social Justice Warriors… and if left up to them, they’d increase the African race and destroy the white race.

    Probably what you will see once the liberal elites get genetic engineering technology (and the power to use it) is a global race of passive, feminized, left-wing mulattoes — the “New Socialist Man.”

    Read More
  44. Then…if there are genes for psychopathy, well…I mean, do we really need Ted Bundys?

    Fred must’ve been feeling momentarily charitable; better examples would have been the hag Hillary and the doofus McCain, or practically any other politician.

    As for eugenics, since humans can screw up anything, it’s only a matter of time before some moron screws up big time. In fact, get a load of this…

    “Desperate to make use of his limited funding, Ivanov then made the horrific decision to attempt the insemination of African women with chimpanzee sperm without their knowledge. ”

    blogs.scientificamerican.com/primate-diaries/stalins-ape-man-superwarriors/

    Some say Stalin supported Ivanov in an attempt to create human-ape super warriors. Hey, anything’s possible!

    Read More
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    We already have human/ape hybrids. See, e.g., NFL and NBA.
  45. The same people who on avg want genetic engineering believe that ethics is a problem to the “scientific progress” and IQ surpass wisdom.
    In other words: Wrong people who think they are the masters of intelligence and human behavior understanding want to rebuild humanity based on their own irrational/but logical preconceptions.

    Genetic business… To change the life into a toy.

    Nothing more dangerous than the combination of technological power and morally idiots

    I don’t know if chinee pragmatic mindset is entirely derived from their own or from their cultural appropriation: Comunshitism. I mean INTP types or the sociopathic scientists seems to be abundant among comunshit elites.

    Read More
  46. @Intelligent Dasein

    Can you elaborate?

    Or perhaps you are referring to a biological reason GE is not possible?
     
    Yes, I am referring to a biological reason. And I would love to elaborate, but it's kind of a lot to explain in a short comment. Every time I try to abbreviate it so that I can write it out in my brief moments of free time, most of the other commenters here call me an idiot.

    In short, as I have said before in several Sailer columns, I believe the current interpretation of genetics is largely pseudo-scientific. The basic idea is that the genome contains the information used for constructing a living organism---the "blueprint" of life. On that theory, genetic engineering seems possible. Change the information, change the organism.

    On the other hand, I say that the whole idea of genetic "information" is spurious. The genome serves the living creature as an organ of protein synthesis, and its operations under actual living conditions is quite variable. There is no simple correspondence between genetic patterns and expressed traits. The organism exerts a large measure of top-down control over how its protein-organ functions, as does the environment. Genetic engineering will never advance beyond parlor tricks like making Bt corn and luminescent rabbits.

    The "information" for making a living organism is not in the DNA, it is in the immaterial soul, which, per Aristotle, is "of it self and per se the form of the body." The DNA is, of course, entirely material and is really just part of the body. It does not stand to reason that you can change the essence of the creature by altering its DNA, any more than you could change its essence by plucking out its hair or cutting off its limbs. "Genetic engineering" is really just mutilation. Like other forms of mutilation (tail docking, for instance) it may have some accidentally beneficial side effects, but it is still just a brute example of accidental change.

    By these and similar arguments it is also proven that Darwinian evolution is impossible and did not in fact occur. An argument or thought process which simply assumes the Darwinian paradigm (i.e. evolutionary psychology) is thereby invalidated.

    I have a beef with Sailerites, HBDs, and PUAs and their continual reliance on pseudo-scientific crap, but my main argument is with the scientific community itself and its non-grasp of philosophical first principles.

    The problem with your dualism is that we empirically see a direct pathway from genes to proteins to function in every organism from bacteria to tobacco plants to fruit flies to dogs to humans. We can literally change the form and function of organisms by changing the DNA. To posit an immortal soul that is actually pulling the strings behind the scenes means that either every single one of the 10^20 bacteria that has every lived, and every one of the blue-green algae and every one of the tobacco plants, also has an immortal soul, or that at some point on the the tree of life (dogs? lemurs? apes? Neanderthals?) a soul was introduced to do what previously molecules alone could.

    Read More
  47. @macilrae
    Surely the survival and success of humanity depended in the past upon selecting males for combativeness (works well for elephant seals and musk ox too) which psychologists tell us is a temporary diversion of the sexual urge. In fact all great human achievements are probably ultimately down to the same powerful drive - take that away and you might come out with a race of Elois - people with huge IQ potential but, sadly, very little ... er, "get up and go" (and that includes in the bedroom).

    I am not even sure if these persons would have the energy to finish college or brush their teeth; still less go on and discover or invent something of astounding value to humankind. However, they would be "extremely, extremely" bright - but come to think of it, what proportion of MENSA members are also high achievers in life? My hunch is the percentage is not so great.

    Heckman’s research finding is that there are not diminishing returns to IQ. As IQ goes to 130, 140, and beyond, achievement just keeps on going up.

    Read More
  48. In the grand scheme of state/military-industrial technological advancement, the reasons given to the public and those working in these programmes, a priori, have always been autistic in intent – rainbows, happy children, peace and apple pie.

    Therefore, lies.

    The actual historical record shows that industrial/military technologies like biological weaponry, nuclear or mass systemic surveillance are actually used for schizo darwinian ends.

    The chinese are experimenting not to cure HIV or epilepsy. You would have to be one of the socially clueless scientists working on the project to believe that.

    The intent would be to create specialised humans for warfare, to boost the abilities and lifespans of the Extractor’s progeny or themselves and develop a cadre of specialists who will probably be stuck in white rooms in underground labs all their lives for the sole purpose of developing more efficient Extraction (presumably they will also be designed not to have a Theory of Mind, like the current scientists, so as to never figure out what’s going on and take power themselves).

    The boost of IQ as a theoretical proposition, even if applied ostensibly for rainbows, is ridiculous because there is quant, verbal, musical, social and so on types of intelligence. Many of these are direct tradeoffs. Presumably, if we just go with quant, the people would be very odd, introverted, clumsy, and probably obsessed with childish hobbies.

    That reminds of me of a country I know.

    Could it be that the Chinese have already had a eugenics programme in place for thousands of years already? Haven’t you read Ron Unz own essay on the topic?

    Has it only dawned on you now what the result of that has been?….White people starting afresh in the New World in Australia, New Zealand, Canada and America created a society 10 times more prosperous per person in 200 years than autistic social engineering in China in 2000…why would a centrally planned system of human selection ever prove to be superior?

    Hayek!

    I’m not even sure a Keynesian intervention to stop violence is a good thing either – we need testosterone to continue evolution, take risk, innovate and destroy Gamma Gamma ideology priests, the Extractor Consensus, and other artifacts that hold back progress far more than a lack of IQ among the populous.

    Read More
  49. Always a thought provoking column from Fred.
    The problem with breeding, it would seem, is with the breeders. Who qualifies a breeder for breeding, and who determines the desired end results. Would we want Barrack Obama, say, or a Clinton to be in charge of the Beltway Bureaucracy of Breeding that is responsible for funding the various Ivy League laboratories doing the research? How does one self breed the disposition to evil and sheer human obnoxiousness out of oneself to measure up to the job of ‘decider,’ to use a word a decidedly incompetent ‘decider’ used to describe himself although he had unfortunately been cast into that very role with lamentable results. It seems to me we are courting serious trouble here.
    But of much more immediate concerns to the future of human dignity and freedom are the screen technologies that are swallowing everybody up inside and out and will put everyone’s life on demand to the cubicle dwellers in Washington DC. It may be the geneticists who bring down the final curtain but the technologies for the cubilicians to select who should be getting rounded up, of course only for the best and noblist of reasons, is already with us; we the people have already greedily swallowed the hook; now it is only a matter of time before the dullards in the Bureaucracies fully realize the power they have in hand and begin to exploit it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @turtle
    >Do we redesign ourselves, or don’t we?
    We will be bred by our owners.
    At its most basic level, how much is a good halfback worth?
    Or, why is aggressive behavior encouraged in the black ghetto, but disfavored in the white suburbs? Is there a movement afoot to make the NBA "look like America?" I think not.
    Why not? (Hint: see last sentence in following paragraph.)

    Society *does* recognize that not all Blacks are nascent Michael Jordans.
    Some Blacks, as with *some* Whites and Asians, have the talent to become astrophysicists (e.g. Neil Tyson, Sylvester Gates), and if that talent is recognized, there is provision for its development. The Body (of society) seeks out talent for its own purposes, mainly as intellectual fuel for the military-industrial complex. Why? Large amounts of money are at stake.

    Take it from there..
    Nature + nurture:
    Q. Who gets violin lessons at age 4?
    A. Those who can benefit from them.
    Q. Who gets taught calculus at age 15?
    A. Those who have the ability to grasp the subject.

    Even the best German shepherd is not a guard dog until properly trained.
    But, to get the best finished product, one must begin with the best raw material.
    Dachshunds are not trained as guard dogs, even though dachshunds and German shepherd dogs both have German heritage (as do I, FWIW).

    I do not hear anyone calling for deliberate "diversity" in dog (or horse) breeding.
    In the case of dogs, as we know, that is called "mongrelization," and is considered undesirable.
    Why should anyone propose that path for humans?

    Read the alumni notes from your alma mater. How many old grads are noting the academic achievements of sons and daughters? Quite a few, I'll bet.

    I assert that if both your parents have PhDs from MIT, Harvard, Stanford, or some other fine institution, you will not be sweeping floors for living, and this will not be a manifestation of "white privilege."

    It *will* be a manifestation of ability privilege.
    Of which, I am highly in favor.
  50. @Aaron Gross
    Mr. Christian, please report to the Sterilization Center immediately.

    Ha-Haaaaa! All taken care of. I had one daughter, was forced into a “Not Haaaaaapy” divorce.And so I was unleashed upon Bill Clinton’s Washington, in a time where every woman was straining to unleash her “inner Monica Lewinski”. Tore up my husband card, got a vasectomy right away, upgraded my motorcycles and cut a fair swath through the single world in DC, circa 1992-2008. It was a grand time, good economy, the women weren’t all fat and tatted, had a really good time.

    I raised my kid right, two boyfriends her whole life, she’s Computer Science grad, married her college sweetie at 23, preggars with my grandkid at 24 they make a ton of dough and he’s from a wealthy family, too. I am at peace with my one. Sorry to one and all, MY genetic lineup is going onward and upward. And, three of my siblings all have children, and THOSE all having/had many babies.

    Again, my apologies, we are a fecund bunch of Christians. Half-Greek, the, just the good half.

    Like I said, I’m ugly, but I mean well. Happy Labor Day all. Mustn’t forget those who labor for us all.

    Read More
  51. @Rurik
    Hey Intelligent Dasein,

    There is no simple correspondence between genetic patterns and expressed traits.
     
    huh? What do you think makes a man a man? Or a dog a dog? Or traits like eye color or height or even intelligence or a love of music. These things are all determined and effected by our DNA.

    The organism exerts a large measure of top-down control over how its protein-organ functions,
     
    huh? Do I tell my DNA what to do? Or does it tell me?

    OK, real quick. Every single cell in every living thing has a DNA molecule at it's nucleus, or core. That DNA molecule tells that cell what to do (how to be what it is). Whether or not it's going to be a human neuron in a human brain, or a chimpanzee's fingernail, down to the lowliest DNA of a virus, every cell, of every living thing, are all doing the functions of a living cell depending on what the DNA molecule tells them how to be that living cell. Blood cell, brain cell, down to grass and bacteria. We're all determined by what's inside our DNA.

    We don't wake up one day, and decide we're going to be a giraffe or a genius. If we have the DNA of a Eskimo, that that's what we're going to be. And every single cell in our body, are all acting the way they do to make an Eskimo and Eskimo, because of the design of that DNA.

    Now, was that design a product of billions of years of evolution, resulting from some fortuitous accident of some amino acids serendipitously aligning into a double helix because of the nature of our atmosphere and a lucky strike of lightning at the right moment, fusing these four amino acids into a kind of self-replicating organism, or was this design an act of volition from a God or Gods or extra terrestrial aliens, for instance?

    Personally, I don't know the answer to that question, but I also have doubts when anyone claims to know for sure. That knowledge is kind of like death, we won't know what it's like until we get there (or until the aliens make themselves known and explain it all). But the idea that our genetic identity is a top-down arrangement, with the soul in charge, is rather silly, I should think. If you have the DNA of a cat, that's what you're going to be, and how you're going to act. If you have the DNA of an Eskimo, that what you're going to be and how you're going to act. Tree, bat, spider or human with a disposition towards spirituality, (like me ; )

    The “information” for making a living organism is not in the DNA, it is in the immaterial soul,
     
    this is, simply wrong

    It does not stand to reason that you can change the essence of the creature by altering its DNA
     
    this is where it gets interesting!

    our aging process is not due to our cells wearing out. It's due to our DNA telling our cells to wear out after a certain time period. There really is no reason why we shouldn't be able to tweak these DNA molecules to tell the cells to simply keep replicating forever, as if you were a perpetual 30 yr. old. This is where it gets scary, because I'm absolutely certain that this is were most of the private money is being spent on research. In labs all over the third world, were a bribe can easily keep the authorities far away.

    Imagine what life on earth would be like if men like Rothschild and Soros could live forever.

    Because as we humans tweak 'God's' building blocks, we surly are not going to use the things that are built to augment human happiness, not hardly. Just the opposite in fact, and why? Because we all have as humans our baboon-like genes from a more ancient time. And it's these genes that make us want to dominate others, and gain advantage and see our rivals humiliated or slaughtered. We are, even as we tweak our own DNA, still only savage primates at core, who, based on everything we see unfolding in the world today, act in ways that are even worse than our more primitive cousins, the other great apes - who weren't touched by God. (like we were ; )

    “OK, real quick. Every single cell in every living thing has a DNA molecule at it’s nucleus, or core.”

    Mature human erythrocytes?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    Mature human erythrocytes?
     
    I stand corrected

    but I notice you did say 'mature', because these cells start out life with a (DNA imbued) nucleus, which then 'tells' the cell what to do and how to be that cell, even to jettison its nucleus at a certain stage for the sake of simplistic cell efficiency. (ability to transport oxygen to the other cells)

    There are no doubt many anomalies in the fabric of life that defy and challenge our understanding of how it works. But the most challenging question of all seems to remain why?
  52. @Intelligent Dasein

    Can you elaborate?

    Or perhaps you are referring to a biological reason GE is not possible?
     
    Yes, I am referring to a biological reason. And I would love to elaborate, but it's kind of a lot to explain in a short comment. Every time I try to abbreviate it so that I can write it out in my brief moments of free time, most of the other commenters here call me an idiot.

    In short, as I have said before in several Sailer columns, I believe the current interpretation of genetics is largely pseudo-scientific. The basic idea is that the genome contains the information used for constructing a living organism---the "blueprint" of life. On that theory, genetic engineering seems possible. Change the information, change the organism.

    On the other hand, I say that the whole idea of genetic "information" is spurious. The genome serves the living creature as an organ of protein synthesis, and its operations under actual living conditions is quite variable. There is no simple correspondence between genetic patterns and expressed traits. The organism exerts a large measure of top-down control over how its protein-organ functions, as does the environment. Genetic engineering will never advance beyond parlor tricks like making Bt corn and luminescent rabbits.

    The "information" for making a living organism is not in the DNA, it is in the immaterial soul, which, per Aristotle, is "of it self and per se the form of the body." The DNA is, of course, entirely material and is really just part of the body. It does not stand to reason that you can change the essence of the creature by altering its DNA, any more than you could change its essence by plucking out its hair or cutting off its limbs. "Genetic engineering" is really just mutilation. Like other forms of mutilation (tail docking, for instance) it may have some accidentally beneficial side effects, but it is still just a brute example of accidental change.

    By these and similar arguments it is also proven that Darwinian evolution is impossible and did not in fact occur. An argument or thought process which simply assumes the Darwinian paradigm (i.e. evolutionary psychology) is thereby invalidated.

    I have a beef with Sailerites, HBDs, and PUAs and their continual reliance on pseudo-scientific crap, but my main argument is with the scientific community itself and its non-grasp of philosophical first principles.

    Basically your arguing from revelation, divine, Aristotelian, whatever. Your naive “Aristototelian” analysis would be ripped to shreds in an intro class in Aristotelian philosophy. I remember enough from my freshman course in Aristotle’s Metaphysics, taught by Professor Diamandopolous, at Brandeis University, to recognize that. And you’ve not kept up even with the popularized accounts of what is going on in genomic research these days. So, yes, I am going to dismiss you as an ignorant fool on these topics. Ignorant because you expose yourself as such with every word you’ve written. And a fool because you do not recognize your own ignorance. I don’t know why I even wasted my time writing this.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    I know some relatively dim bulbs who graduated from Brandeis. It's an overrated institution populated primarily by overly inbred people who harbor delusions of racial supremacy. So your experience at that supposedly impressive institution of higher indoctrination, isn't all that impressive. Not enough to entitle you to mock and dismiss someone else's arguments, certainly.

    Another Jew who doesn't realize his own quite apparent limitations. What a Schande.
  53. @Jim Christian
    Oh, and you assholes are so clever. Fred got me. At the end of the day, I was defending Fred against....HIMSELF! I never said I was smart, I'm ugly and I mean well, like everyone else. Like I said, I try to like the guy. I've bought and read all his books, Fred traveled with the cops on my old stomping grounds, DC, and wrote books about the experience.

    Now, you wise fucks better go back up your filthy sewers of a yap and go buy Fred's books, they're all online at Amazon.

    If you don't, you suck. Go fugg yesseffs.

    Hi Fred. I went to war for your picture, but I don't remember that pic in any of your books. Just a White guy making funny-faces with the kids. Ya trolled me, good job. You are my friend from afar, but you still piss me off. If you and Unzee are ever in Boston, ya like Lobsters and Lager? Keep me in mind. The rest yall? I got feathers for you assholes. Zip. Nuttin'.

    XOXO, Jim-Bob Knucklehead.

    Sometimes after one has been humiliated it is better for one to retire quietly from the field with whatever tattered shreds of dignity one has remaining.

    Read More
  54. anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Pat the Rat
    Genetic engineering.

    Two trees: one of knowledge of good and evil, one of life.

    Man seized knowledge of good and evil in the garden and was therefore denied the "tree of life" lest they become like "gods".

    Man now is on the cusp of seizing the "tree of life", and when that happens it will bring on the apocalypse.

    I read this on the net in a series of articles, always struck me as extraordinary, and convincing. Would not be surprised if it was true.

    “Do you know, daughter, who you are, And who I am? If you know these two things, you will be blessed. You are she is not; whereas I am He who is. Have this knowledge in you and the enemy will never deceive you…“

    As distilled by St. Catherine of Siena: I’m God; you’re not.

    Best of luck to mankind and his GE, he’ll need it.

    Read More
  55. @Fin of a Cobra
    "China" and "eugenics" always seem to go hand in hand -- and, despite his apparent tongue-in-cheekness, Fred Reed makes the same, dead serious association. But I've never seen a more poignant description of what now seems like an inseparable dyad than Eugenics: A Reassessment (2001), in which Richard Lynn makes the following predictions (my paraphrase) in the apotheotic conclusion of the book:

    Having achieved parity with Superpower Europe around 2050 (the US will have already fallen by the wayside, into a Latin-Americanesque pit of dysgenic mediocrity), and supremacy in the following decades, China will then establish an autocratic world state in which positive and negative eugenic programs will be imposed on a global scale. The Chinese will see to it that the remaining European elites will be cloned in order to preserve genetic diversity and creativity; they will develop new genes to improve intelligence and replace natural selection with human selection, a process which will culminate in the birthing of a new human species – a species which will then go on to colonize other planets in solar systems beyond our own.

    China will only be able to reach these now unfathomable achievements because it will be the only state that will be willing to engage in a serious, all-out eugenics program.

    This coming World Eugenic State (WES) mandated by China will be the inevitable result of Francis Galton's 1909 prediction that “the nation which first subjects itself to a rational eugenical discipline is bound to inherit the earth” (the quote with which he ends the whole book...).

    If what you suggest is true, the Chinese ruling elites are probably making a disastrous mistake.

    We have come a very long way since Watson and Crick determined the structure and basic functionality of DNA. However, it’s only recently that we’ve begun to understand even a fraction of the complexity of genomic expression, e.g., epigenetic suppression and amplification. It’s a little bit early to be mucking around in the details of the human genome. For instance, there are scores of alleles implicated in determining how high an individual may test on an IQ test. These likely interact with one another and with other alleles in complex and right now totally undiscovered ways. It’s entirely possible that altering some of these alleles in an attempt to enhance IQ may actually lower it or introduce life-threatening genetic disorders. And we don’t even understand intelligence that well. What if tinkering with IQ affects some subtler form of intelligence in a devastating and irreparable way?

    Also, the evolutionary process has been operating in humans for some 200,000 years. It’s hard to argue with the empirical “wisdom” inherent in both natural selection and moderate sexual and cultural selection. Many alleles that we think are harmful to the individual may protect that individual or even the clades containing that allele in ways we cannot yet appreciate. It is conceivable the Chinese could improve some subset of their population, only to see that subset eradicated in an outbreak of sweating sickness.

    Read More
  56. nature has already experimented with humans: neanderthal & homo sapien. ‘homo sapien had 50 points higher’, perhaps, than neanderthal. and eventually ‘out-competed’ them rendering neanderthal extinct. however, they did interbreed with homo sapien before existence only in picture books.
    European-descended peoples have around 4% neanderthal dna. east asians none.
    would a 4% higher iq for east asians be expected? it’s probably not that simple.
    and what if neanderthal had survived? what if they were still with us today? the world would surely be a very different place; as chaos theory kinda sorta proves, a small change in the beginning produces enormous difference at the end.
    athleticism is a natural gift. so is music and other arts. genius mathematicians & physicists describe a counter-intuitive universe. innate quality trumps the quality of nurture.
    who are smarter: men or women? it’s a question we don’t want to study. and with good reason: the answer doesn’t matter. perhaps, men are smarter at somethings and woman in others. even the small difference in body type between genders will naturally create a slight difference in thought process. which benefits humankind with two perspectives of the same thing.
    i tend to ramble, so i’ll stop.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rich
    Europeans and East Asians both have significant Neanderthal DNA. Africans have no Neanderthal DNA. Researchers have shown East Asians to have more Neanderthal DNA than Europeans.
  57. @Son of Dixie
    Fred is a turncoat. He is an honorary Mexican now, saddled down with a Mexican wife and her children that were sired by a Mexican man.
    When the wall goes up we can only hope Fred is no longer allowed in the US, and our tax dollars he collects are redistributed to White families in the United States.

    didn’t you star in ‘deliverance?’

    Read More
  58. Fred, not to subtract from the interesting substance of your post, but you wrote: For many people, I among them….

    I believe the grammar should be: For many people, myself among them

    or For many people, me among them

    It’s not a common sentence formulation so easy to get wrong, and I hadn’t thought about it before. But it sounded wrong to me, and I think because of the “For” has to take an objective pronoun.

    Read More
    • Replies: @El Dato
    I, for one, welcome our grammar-correcting genetically enhanced overlords.

    An interesting question is "augmenting intelligence" as it currently is entirely unclear how the complex neural cabling of the brain emerges from the evidently very compressed representation available in the progenitor cell - or even how that cabling determines behavior. How to poke around in this mess?

    Having a short-term memory of a few hundred items instead of just ~7 would probably be worth it though, you could kick homo sapiens ass.

    OTOH, if machinery to rewire parts of the brain in situ takes off (as described somewhat tongue-in-cheek in Greg Egan's "Quarantine" for example, which reads like a hard boiled novel), that research area may turn out to be uninteresting.

    Only the most paranoid clients phone me in my sleep.

    Of course, nobody wants a sensitive call electronically decoded and flashed up on the screen of an ordinary videophone; even if the room isn't bugged, radio-frequency spillage from the unscrambled signal can be picked up a block away. Most people, though, are content with the usual solution: a neural modification enabling the brain to perform the decoding itself, passing the results directly to the visual and auditory centres. The mod I use, CypherClerk (NeuroComm, $5,999), also provides a virtual larynx option, for complete two-way security.

    However. Even the brain leaks faint electric and magnetic fields. A superconducting detector planted on the scalp, no bigger than a flake of dandruff, can eavesdrop on the neural data flow involved in an act of ersatz perception, and translate it almost instantaneously into the corresponding images and sounds.

    Hence The Night Switchboard (Axon, $17,999). The nano-machines which carry out this modification can take up to six weeks to map the user's idiosyncratic schemata — the rules by which meanings are encoded in neural connections — but once that's done, the intermediary language of the senses can be bypassed completely. What the caller wants you to know, you know, without any need to hallucinate a talking head spelling it out, and the electromagnetic signature at skull level is, for all practical purposes, inscrutable. The only catch is, in the conscious state, most people find it disorienting — and at worst traumatic — to have information crystallizing in their heads without the conventional preliminaries. So, you have to be asleep to take the call.

    No dreams; I simply wake, knowing:

    Laura Andrews is thirty-two years old, one hundred and fifty-six centimetres tall, and weighs forty-five kilograms. Short, straight brown hair; pale blue eyes; a long, thin nose. Anglo-Irish features and deep black skin; like most Australians, born with insufficient UV protection, she's been retrofitted with genes for boosted melanin production and a thicker epidermis.

    Laura Andrews has severe congenital brain damage; she can walk and eat, clumsily, but she can't communicate in any fashion, and the experts say that she understands the world little better than a six-month-old child. Since the age of five, she's been an in-patient at the local Hilgemann Institute.

    Four weeks ago, when an orderly unlocked her room to serve breakfast, she was gone. ... Four weeks later, nothing. No sightings. No corpse. No ransom demands. The police have not officially abandoned the case — merely deprioritized it, pending further developments.

    Further developments are not anticipated.

    My task is to find Laura Andrews and return her safely to the Hilgemann — or locate her remains, if she's dead — and to gather sufficient evidence to ensure that those responsible for her abduction can be prosecuted.
     
    , @utu
    No, he got it right. "For many people, she among them" sounds right while "For many people, her among them" does not. Thus "I among them" not "me among them".
  59. @Flavius
    Always a thought provoking column from Fred.
    The problem with breeding, it would seem, is with the breeders. Who qualifies a breeder for breeding, and who determines the desired end results. Would we want Barrack Obama, say, or a Clinton to be in charge of the Beltway Bureaucracy of Breeding that is responsible for funding the various Ivy League laboratories doing the research? How does one self breed the disposition to evil and sheer human obnoxiousness out of oneself to measure up to the job of 'decider,' to use a word a decidedly incompetent 'decider' used to describe himself although he had unfortunately been cast into that very role with lamentable results. It seems to me we are courting serious trouble here.
    But of much more immediate concerns to the future of human dignity and freedom are the screen technologies that are swallowing everybody up inside and out and will put everyone's life on demand to the cubicle dwellers in Washington DC. It may be the geneticists who bring down the final curtain but the technologies for the cubilicians to select who should be getting rounded up, of course only for the best and noblist of reasons, is already with us; we the people have already greedily swallowed the hook; now it is only a matter of time before the dullards in the Bureaucracies fully realize the power they have in hand and begin to exploit it.

    >Do we redesign ourselves, or don’t we?
    We will be bred by our owners.
    At its most basic level, how much is a good halfback worth?
    Or, why is aggressive behavior encouraged in the black ghetto, but disfavored in the white suburbs? Is there a movement afoot to make the NBA “look like America?” I think not.
    Why not? (Hint: see last sentence in following paragraph.)

    Society *does* recognize that not all Blacks are nascent Michael Jordans.
    Some Blacks, as with *some* Whites and Asians, have the talent to become astrophysicists (e.g. Neil Tyson, Sylvester Gates), and if that talent is recognized, there is provision for its development. The Body (of society) seeks out talent for its own purposes, mainly as intellectual fuel for the military-industrial complex. Why? Large amounts of money are at stake.

    Take it from there..
    Nature + nurture:
    Q. Who gets violin lessons at age 4?
    A. Those who can benefit from them.
    Q. Who gets taught calculus at age 15?
    A. Those who have the ability to grasp the subject.

    Even the best German shepherd is not a guard dog until properly trained.
    But, to get the best finished product, one must begin with the best raw material.
    Dachshunds are not trained as guard dogs, even though dachshunds and German shepherd dogs both have German heritage (as do I, FWIW).

    I do not hear anyone calling for deliberate “diversity” in dog (or horse) breeding.
    In the case of dogs, as we know, that is called “mongrelization,” and is considered undesirable.
    Why should anyone propose that path for humans?

    Read the alumni notes from your alma mater. How many old grads are noting the academic achievements of sons and daughters? Quite a few, I’ll bet.

    I assert that if both your parents have PhDs from MIT, Harvard, Stanford, or some other fine institution, you will not be sweeping floors for living, and this will not be a manifestation of “white privilege.”

    It *will* be a manifestation of ability privilege.
    Of which, I am highly in favor.

    Read More
  60. edNels [AKA "geoshmoe"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Ron Unz

    Two little girls and their father making funny faces and Fred, drunk-fuck inbred that HE is, depicts them as:

    “Appalachian white trash, presenting obvious neurological deficits consequent to inbreeding. A clear argument for eugenics.”

    Exactly what Fred, are you?...I’ll watch for ANON7 to say now, “Aw, shucks, I wuzz only kee-iddin!”. I try to like Fred, but he hates his own race so these days.
     
    Ha, ha, ha...

    You do realize, don't you, that you're looking at a photo of Fred Reed himself and his two young daughters?

    Ha, ha, ha....

    Well I don’t know, but Fred and daughters are spoofing and mugging the same as we did as kids.
    I remember my Dad comming up the stairs and mugging almost the same face as Fred there, and that meant he didn’t make any sales that day… Hell we could make the faces alright, that’s real good humor too, talk about your subtety and stuff, but how do you gauge that? Humor is wonderful medicine… there’s different forms of it.. but a little expression on the face can be funny, don’t have to be wordy or rational to be understood.

    High IQ Mensa… great at Cross Word games not too good at Carpentry, or much.

    Will there be gene manipulations… Aldous wrote about it didn’t he… (IOW’s this is a given!), and those TV series, like the latter Star Treck where they sported Hybrid humanoid/lizard phenotypes 24/7 to the detriment of any script writing or plot development, that was in your face push for this kind of work, getting the peeps ready for the roll out, and more… and euthanization is not too far out either, even if it is by natural atrition… !! haha. (by which I mean, what about the possibilities that are aborted too by under funding… (under supporing… not going with the flow of somebody, (by which I mean: somebody might be left in the dust, for social political other reasons, who would have been the next… (jesus/ or what?))). put that in the Equation too, when you ”stir the pot”…

    Read More
    • Replies: @edNels
    Oh common geoff... you know nobody reads Aldous anymores... They're completely zoned out on electronic Soma... now in convienient hand held versions... Fred is a mench! He has enough of humanity to put out some great common sense truth.
  61. @Fred Reed
    "OK, real quick. Every single cell in every living thing has a DNA molecule at it’s nucleus, or core."

    Mature human erythrocytes?

    Mature human erythrocytes?

    I stand corrected

    but I notice you did say ‘mature’, because these cells start out life with a (DNA imbued) nucleus, which then ‘tells’ the cell what to do and how to be that cell, even to jettison its nucleus at a certain stage for the sake of simplistic cell efficiency. (ability to transport oxygen to the other cells)

    There are no doubt many anomalies in the fabric of life that defy and challenge our understanding of how it works. But the most challenging question of all seems to remain why?

    Read More
  62. People “seems” miss the fundamental/central point of Brave New World: What make bight self aware outliers those who really can change the river path is not the the genetically modified alphas.

    Read More
  63. @Jus' Sayin'...
    Sometimes after one has been humiliated it is better for one to retire quietly from the field with whatever tattered shreds of dignity one has remaining.

    Well, I would suggest you do just that!

    Read More
  64. Humans on avg can’t understand themselves, fathers and mothers can’t understand/know who are your sons… People read: So many people “still” debate if jewsus really there or not, so many people are so dumb and predictable in their thoughts and behaviors, if eugenics really were applied must recognize basic human/universal weaknesses.

    But hbd crowd et all don’t appear concerned about this “little” things…

    Read More
  65. men of thirty get into bar fights and women don’t.

    Unless they’re black.

    Read More
  66. @Darwin
    Fred, not to subtract from the interesting substance of your post, but you wrote: For many people, I among them....

    I believe the grammar should be: For many people, myself among them

    or For many people, me among them

    It's not a common sentence formulation so easy to get wrong, and I hadn't thought about it before. But it sounded wrong to me, and I think because of the "For" has to take an objective pronoun.

    I, for one, welcome our grammar-correcting genetically enhanced overlords.

    An interesting question is “augmenting intelligence” as it currently is entirely unclear how the complex neural cabling of the brain emerges from the evidently very compressed representation available in the progenitor cell – or even how that cabling determines behavior. How to poke around in this mess?

    Having a short-term memory of a few hundred items instead of just ~7 would probably be worth it though, you could kick homo sapiens ass.

    OTOH, if machinery to rewire parts of the brain in situ takes off (as described somewhat tongue-in-cheek in Greg Egan’s “Quarantine” for example, which reads like a hard boiled novel), that research area may turn out to be uninteresting.

    [MORE]

    Only the most paranoid clients phone me in my sleep.

    Of course, nobody wants a sensitive call electronically decoded and flashed up on the screen of an ordinary videophone; even if the room isn’t bugged, radio-frequency spillage from the unscrambled signal can be picked up a block away. Most people, though, are content with the usual solution: a neural modification enabling the brain to perform the decoding itself, passing the results directly to the visual and auditory centres. The mod I use, CypherClerk (NeuroComm, $5,999), also provides a virtual larynx option, for complete two-way security.

    However. Even the brain leaks faint electric and magnetic fields. A superconducting detector planted on the scalp, no bigger than a flake of dandruff, can eavesdrop on the neural data flow involved in an act of ersatz perception, and translate it almost instantaneously into the corresponding images and sounds.

    Hence The Night Switchboard (Axon, $17,999). The nano-machines which carry out this modification can take up to six weeks to map the user’s idiosyncratic schemata — the rules by which meanings are encoded in neural connections — but once that’s done, the intermediary language of the senses can be bypassed completely. What the caller wants you to know, you know, without any need to hallucinate a talking head spelling it out, and the electromagnetic signature at skull level is, for all practical purposes, inscrutable. The only catch is, in the conscious state, most people find it disorienting — and at worst traumatic — to have information crystallizing in their heads without the conventional preliminaries. So, you have to be asleep to take the call.

    No dreams; I simply wake, knowing:

    Laura Andrews is thirty-two years old, one hundred and fifty-six centimetres tall, and weighs forty-five kilograms. Short, straight brown hair; pale blue eyes; a long, thin nose. Anglo-Irish features and deep black skin; like most Australians, born with insufficient UV protection, she’s been retrofitted with genes for boosted melanin production and a thicker epidermis.

    Laura Andrews has severe congenital brain damage; she can walk and eat, clumsily, but she can’t communicate in any fashion, and the experts say that she understands the world little better than a six-month-old child. Since the age of five, she’s been an in-patient at the local Hilgemann Institute.

    Four weeks ago, when an orderly unlocked her room to serve breakfast, she was gone. … Four weeks later, nothing. No sightings. No corpse. No ransom demands. The police have not officially abandoned the case — merely deprioritized it, pending further developments.

    Further developments are not anticipated.

    My task is to find Laura Andrews and return her safely to the Hilgemann — or locate her remains, if she’s dead — and to gather sufficient evidence to ensure that those responsible for her abduction can be prosecuted.

    Read More
  67. @edNels


    Well I don't know, but Fred and daughters are spoofing and mugging the same as we did as kids.
    I remember my Dad comming up the stairs and mugging almost the same face as Fred there, and that meant he didn't make any sales that day... Hell we could make the faces alright, that's real good humor too, talk about your subtety and stuff, but how do you gauge that? Humor is wonderful medicine... there's different forms of it.. but a little expression on the face can be funny, don't have to be wordy or rational to be understood.

    High IQ Mensa... great at Cross Word games not too good at Carpentry, or much.

    Will there be gene manipulations... Aldous wrote about it didn't he... (IOW's this is a given!), and those TV series, like the latter Star Treck where they sported Hybrid humanoid/lizard phenotypes 24/7 to the detriment of any script writing or plot development, that was in your face push for this kind of work, getting the peeps ready for the roll out, and more... and euthanization is not too far out either, even if it is by natural atrition... !! haha. (by which I mean, what about the possibilities that are aborted too by under funding... (under supporing... not going with the flow of somebody, (by which I mean: somebody might be left in the dust, for social political other reasons, who would have been the next... (jesus/ or what?))). put that in the Equation too, when you ''stir the pot''...

    Oh common geoff… you know nobody reads Aldous anymores… They’re completely zoned out on electronic Soma… now in convienient hand held versions… Fred is a mench! He has enough of humanity to put out some great common sense truth.

    Read More
  68. The idea of editing genes sounds fancy and will keep scientists busy at bay for foreseeable future. If you want to see a superhuman, immune to any forms of diseases, capable of climbing Mt.Everest, flying through pacific oceans, you don’t need CRISPR to toy with so many genes. We already have all the necessary tools we have here – a diverse array of gene pools. The only roadblock we have is “Monogamy”.

    This kind of comment will portend some horny guys contemplating over the possibility of one night stand. Bear with me this one.

    1. Gene editing sounds fancy, but it’s not as straightforward as you might expect to see Frankenstein or some muscular guys popping out of human pods and become Captain America. Humans as we see today is not some tiny baker’s yeasts that we modify one gene and they become super yeasts. Everything we perceive, every idea we project, the ability to execute our own will are in fact evolutionary products. We evolved to mobile skeletons. Otherwise, we’ll be standing dead trees. We evolved to become thinkers. Otherwise, we’ll be Chimpanzees. But editing one gene or multiples cannot transform a monkey to a human.

    2. The idea of one gene, one protein, one behavior is devised to explain to laymen. But there are millions of genes (ORFs), and some unknown non-coding RNAs which in turn regulate gene expression. Knocking out one gene cannot transform one’s idea from conservatives to liberals or vice versa. How many genes need to be modified to transform some dumbheads to Einstein? It can take millions of years by human experiments. But just let the nature takes it course and we will see one Einstein in every 200 years.

    3. Nature has selected the best. The branching of the evolutionary tracts has produced many variety of species along the way. We see subtle modification in evolution. Evolution has so many directions and keep evolving. That’s why we see some humans have better visions, cognitive ability far superior than any of his fellow humans and see the future hundreds years ahead. We also see some retarded dumbo along the way.

    Previously people has judged better people by the look of their physique which translates to better at hunting and providing foods for continual existence. These days in order to survive, you don’t need a muscular guy, you need a brainiac to work his way through in this tech era. So Nature now selects your Brain rather than your physique. The energy you consume must go to your brain in any forms of neural synapsis. But Nature has also equipped humans to develop a defense mechanism for its own survival. So those obese and dumbo become aware of their oncoming demise. They devised a strategy called Affirmative Action, Diversity, Food Stamps and ultra-PC to keep them alive. So the energy they consume now occupy in a massive fat-loads of useless DNA under their skin instead of in their brains.

    4. What’s up to do with monogamy? Monogamy only allows one recombination between two opposite humans once in a life time. Any consensual sex, masturbating, jerking off without having kids is basically the society-driven technique we have developed to cheat the Nature. Nature has equipped men to always thinking about sex and copulate with as many partners as possible to populate the environment with any possibility of DNA combination. But we humans devise a defense mechanism along the way to cheat back the nature by any possible means.

    5. Scientists will take years after years to test one gene at a time. But it only takes a toddler 20 years to get married.

    Read More
    • Replies: @edNels


    I just got through talking to a neighbor about DNA in just this context.

    My point was/is, that all possibilites for all the known and (unknown) life forms are accounted for in the DNA... or I think can be called the ''Genome'' but that's over my head.

    My main point is, that since DNA is a blue print, and in that master blue print, are almost unlimited possibilities of expression, such as you have alluded to in your post, via trigger agents.

    So understanding this, it is not too far to conclude that if DNAca travel in space, then it more than likely did do that, and maybe even could be a requisite givin within the logic of the universe
    , @colm
    The Chinese, Turkish, Arabic and Indian rulers tried polygamy for thousands of years, and the result has been at best mixed. And, since it was customary for a new dynasty to slaughter all the members of the previous dynasty, the result of such polygamy didn't benefit humanity too much.
  69. @Aaron Gross

    Remember when computers were exotic? When only Dick Tracy had the two-way wrist radio?
     
    I wonder, what's the median age of unz.com readers?

    “I wonder, what’s the median age of unz.com readers?”

    42.5. years

    50% 5 year olds, 50% 80.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rdm
    The question is "Median", not "Mean".

    I'm worried for the Unz in the future.
  70. @Bill Jones
    "I wonder, what’s the median age of unz.com readers?"

    42.5. years

    50% 5 year olds, 50% 80.

    The question is “Median”, not “Mean”.

    I’m worried for the Unz in the future.

    Read More
  71. @Anatoly Karlin

    Skynet or Bionet?
     
    Why not both?

    Starkes Herz, starker Stahl.

    “Why not both? ”

    We got both of the big fears of Orwell and Huxley.

    Read More
  72. edNels [AKA "geoshmoe"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Rdm
    The idea of editing genes sounds fancy and will keep scientists busy at bay for foreseeable future. If you want to see a superhuman, immune to any forms of diseases, capable of climbing Mt.Everest, flying through pacific oceans, you don't need CRISPR to toy with so many genes. We already have all the necessary tools we have here - a diverse array of gene pools. The only roadblock we have is "Monogamy".

    This kind of comment will portend some horny guys contemplating over the possibility of one night stand. Bear with me this one.

    1. Gene editing sounds fancy, but it's not as straightforward as you might expect to see Frankenstein or some muscular guys popping out of human pods and become Captain America. Humans as we see today is not some tiny baker's yeasts that we modify one gene and they become super yeasts. Everything we perceive, every idea we project, the ability to execute our own will are in fact evolutionary products. We evolved to mobile skeletons. Otherwise, we’ll be standing dead trees. We evolved to become thinkers. Otherwise, we’ll be Chimpanzees. But editing one gene or multiples cannot transform a monkey to a human.

    2. The idea of one gene, one protein, one behavior is devised to explain to laymen. But there are millions of genes (ORFs), and some unknown non-coding RNAs which in turn regulate gene expression. Knocking out one gene cannot transform one’s idea from conservatives to liberals or vice versa. How many genes need to be modified to transform some dumbheads to Einstein? It can take millions of years by human experiments. But just let the nature takes it course and we will see one Einstein in every 200 years.

    3. Nature has selected the best. The branching of the evolutionary tracts has produced many variety of species along the way. We see subtle modification in evolution. Evolution has so many directions and keep evolving. That's why we see some humans have better visions, cognitive ability far superior than any of his fellow humans and see the future hundreds years ahead. We also see some retarded dumbo along the way.

    Previously people has judged better people by the look of their physique which translates to better at hunting and providing foods for continual existence. These days in order to survive, you don't need a muscular guy, you need a brainiac to work his way through in this tech era. So Nature now selects your Brain rather than your physique. The energy you consume must go to your brain in any forms of neural synapsis. But Nature has also equipped humans to develop a defense mechanism for its own survival. So those obese and dumbo become aware of their oncoming demise. They devised a strategy called Affirmative Action, Diversity, Food Stamps and ultra-PC to keep them alive. So the energy they consume now occupy in a massive fat-loads of useless DNA under their skin instead of in their brains.

    4. What’s up to do with monogamy? Monogamy only allows one recombination between two opposite humans once in a life time. Any consensual sex, masturbating, jerking off without having kids is basically the society-driven technique we have developed to cheat the Nature. Nature has equipped men to always thinking about sex and copulate with as many partners as possible to populate the environment with any possibility of DNA combination. But we humans devise a defense mechanism along the way to cheat back the nature by any possible means.

    5. Scientists will take years after years to test one gene at a time. But it only takes a toddler 20 years to get married.

    I just got through talking to a neighbor about DNA in just this context.

    My point was/is, that all possibilites for all the known and (unknown) life forms are accounted for in the DNA… or I think can be called the ”Genome” but that’s over my head.

    My main point is, that since DNA is a blue print, and in that master blue print, are almost unlimited possibilities of expression, such as you have alluded to in your post, via trigger agents.

    So understanding this, it is not too far to conclude that if DNAca travel in space, then it more than likely did do that, and maybe even could be a requisite givin within the logic of the universe

    Read More
  73. @Darwin
    Fred, not to subtract from the interesting substance of your post, but you wrote: For many people, I among them....

    I believe the grammar should be: For many people, myself among them

    or For many people, me among them

    It's not a common sentence formulation so easy to get wrong, and I hadn't thought about it before. But it sounded wrong to me, and I think because of the "For" has to take an objective pronoun.

    No, he got it right. “For many people, she among them” sounds right while “For many people, her among them” does not. Thus “I among them” not “me among them”.

    Read More
  74. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Just now of course no one knows very well what genes control what behavior, or whether all behavior is genetically determined, but this won’t last. Then what?

    Though it’s uneasy to figure it, the social sciences faculty troops will get still more stressed, resentful and anger-prone.

    As to the article’s template, I have tried to interest some people in the inevitable dawning of bioengineering of humans. I think humans will be manufactured in laboratories (and different models will sell at different prices).
    No-one seems to believe this possible. Or perhaps they don’t believe it because it awes them, thus they want not to believe it.

    Nobody can make matter-of-fact predictions yet, but, for example, I see a humanity of average IQ 200 people erasing itself quite fast.

    Read More
    • Replies: @edNels


    Like throwing gas on a fire.. The better idea would be to lower the IQ and let the species get seasoned through a few more millions of years of fighting tooth and claw... until they ready to get serious.
  75. @Lawrence Fitton
    nature has already experimented with humans: neanderthal & homo sapien. 'homo sapien had 50 points higher', perhaps, than neanderthal. and eventually 'out-competed' them rendering neanderthal extinct. however, they did interbreed with homo sapien before existence only in picture books.
    European-descended peoples have around 4% neanderthal dna. east asians none.
    would a 4% higher iq for east asians be expected? it's probably not that simple.
    and what if neanderthal had survived? what if they were still with us today? the world would surely be a very different place; as chaos theory kinda sorta proves, a small change in the beginning produces enormous difference at the end.
    athleticism is a natural gift. so is music and other arts. genius mathematicians & physicists describe a counter-intuitive universe. innate quality trumps the quality of nurture.
    who are smarter: men or women? it's a question we don't want to study. and with good reason: the answer doesn't matter. perhaps, men are smarter at somethings and woman in others. even the small difference in body type between genders will naturally create a slight difference in thought process. which benefits humankind with two perspectives of the same thing.
    i tend to ramble, so i'll stop.

    Europeans and East Asians both have significant Neanderthal DNA. Africans have no Neanderthal DNA. Researchers have shown East Asians to have more Neanderthal DNA than Europeans.

    Read More
  76. edNels [AKA "geoshmoe"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Anonymous

    Just now of course no one knows very well what genes control what behavior, or whether all behavior is genetically determined, but this won’t last. Then what?
     
    Though it's uneasy to figure it, the social sciences faculty troops will get still more stressed, resentful and anger-prone.

    As to the article's template, I have tried to interest some people in the inevitable dawning of bioengineering of humans. I think humans will be manufactured in laboratories (and different models will sell at different prices).
    No-one seems to believe this possible. Or perhaps they don't believe it because it awes them, thus they want not to believe it.

    Nobody can make matter-of-fact predictions yet, but, for example, I see a humanity of average IQ 200 people erasing itself quite fast.

    Like throwing gas on a fire.. The better idea would be to lower the IQ and let the species get seasoned through a few more millions of years of fighting tooth and claw… until they ready to get serious.

    Read More
  77. @Intelligent Dasein

    Can you elaborate?

    Or perhaps you are referring to a biological reason GE is not possible?
     
    Yes, I am referring to a biological reason. And I would love to elaborate, but it's kind of a lot to explain in a short comment. Every time I try to abbreviate it so that I can write it out in my brief moments of free time, most of the other commenters here call me an idiot.

    In short, as I have said before in several Sailer columns, I believe the current interpretation of genetics is largely pseudo-scientific. The basic idea is that the genome contains the information used for constructing a living organism---the "blueprint" of life. On that theory, genetic engineering seems possible. Change the information, change the organism.

    On the other hand, I say that the whole idea of genetic "information" is spurious. The genome serves the living creature as an organ of protein synthesis, and its operations under actual living conditions is quite variable. There is no simple correspondence between genetic patterns and expressed traits. The organism exerts a large measure of top-down control over how its protein-organ functions, as does the environment. Genetic engineering will never advance beyond parlor tricks like making Bt corn and luminescent rabbits.

    The "information" for making a living organism is not in the DNA, it is in the immaterial soul, which, per Aristotle, is "of it self and per se the form of the body." The DNA is, of course, entirely material and is really just part of the body. It does not stand to reason that you can change the essence of the creature by altering its DNA, any more than you could change its essence by plucking out its hair or cutting off its limbs. "Genetic engineering" is really just mutilation. Like other forms of mutilation (tail docking, for instance) it may have some accidentally beneficial side effects, but it is still just a brute example of accidental change.

    By these and similar arguments it is also proven that Darwinian evolution is impossible and did not in fact occur. An argument or thought process which simply assumes the Darwinian paradigm (i.e. evolutionary psychology) is thereby invalidated.

    I have a beef with Sailerites, HBDs, and PUAs and their continual reliance on pseudo-scientific crap, but my main argument is with the scientific community itself and its non-grasp of philosophical first principles.

    This misunderstands Aristotle. For Aristotle, every human being’s essence or substantial form — hereafter, simply “the soul” — functions the same way with respect to proximate matter, e.g. cells, protons, etc. More precisely, every x and y such that x is a human’s soul and y is a human’s soul are such that for any possible configuration of proximate matter P, if x and y were confronted with P, x would organize P just the same way as y would organize P. Were this not the case, for Aristotle, human beings would not form a common species: it’s precisely sameness in essence that guarantees sameness of predication of species. (Denying this also raises numerous problems in theology for Aristotelian Christians, but that’s neither here nor there.)

    So, what’s the upshot? The upshot is that I, or anybody else, could have been basically like Einstein if we had the right proximate materials at our disposal at conception. And if *that’s* the case, then, given just how much mixing and matching of genetic materials we can observe through ordinary reproduction to be enformable / ensoulable, surely it’s possible to jack up people’s IQs, extend their lifespans, give them great athletic abilities, etc. At the very least it’s probable that it’s possible.

    I don’t really understand why anyone would be an Aristotelian these days, though. The arguments for Aristotelianism aren’t very good, and the deliverances of the sciences are much more what you would expect on a loosely Democritean or Cartesian philosophy of nature than on hylomorphism. There’s a reason Aristotelianism is largely the province of unduly haughty papists.

    Read More
  78. This is where the HBD folks get it really wrong.

    They elites aren’t after boosting IQ right now, it’s about life extension that extends their lives well beyond the century mark.

    Right now those who hit the century mark are born that way and they want to change it.

    After all what good is it being Zuckerberg, Ellison or Gates when you still die like every other peasant out there. Shouldn’t there be a perk of the super rich to live much longer than their helots?

    It wouldn’t be hard for them to set up labs in India or Brazil where human life is cheap and organ trafficking is already a reality. It’s just one more step to experiment on humans. And it’s not like you can’t find totally unethical scientists(just recruit some already doing work for the DOD).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Pat the Rat
    You're the only smart guy here.

    Of course it is all about "life", and its extension. The aim is to grasp the "tree of life", particularly for the powerful this idea is intoxicating beyond all belief. They don't really have that much respect for intelligence. You don't have to be smart to enjoy physical love, or fine wine or power over others. Arguably intelligence is more likely to interfere with the pleasures of life, and why bother to seek its extension if not to enjoy those pleasures.

    I suspect they fantasise about being another Rome with all the power over others the rich had there, only now age and death will not rob them of their pleasure.

    You can see why some think that if the "tree of life", which was closed to them in Eden, is grasped by man then the Apocalypse will be imminent to stop men becoming "Gods".

    Looking back over history the inhumanity and cruelty of men to men is beyond belief. One theme is very clear throughout that history, how men can regard other men as less than human, or at least less human than themselves and then justify any atrocity against them, we do it ourselves to unborn babies. How cruel could men be to others if they knew they would never die particularly with all the powers of science behind them.

    The extension of "intelligence" is a little dream for little men, moral cowards who blame the problems of the world on intelligence. We fantasise we can fix the world and gain riches and power by being smarter when any fool can see the problems of the world lie in the heart of man.
  79. @rod1963
    This is where the HBD folks get it really wrong.

    They elites aren't after boosting IQ right now, it's about life extension that extends their lives well beyond the century mark.

    Right now those who hit the century mark are born that way and they want to change it.

    After all what good is it being Zuckerberg, Ellison or Gates when you still die like every other peasant out there. Shouldn't there be a perk of the super rich to live much longer than their helots?

    It wouldn't be hard for them to set up labs in India or Brazil where human life is cheap and organ trafficking is already a reality. It's just one more step to experiment on humans. And it's not like you can't find totally unethical scientists(just recruit some already doing work for the DOD).

    You’re the only smart guy here.

    Of course it is all about “life”, and its extension. The aim is to grasp the “tree of life”, particularly for the powerful this idea is intoxicating beyond all belief. They don’t really have that much respect for intelligence. You don’t have to be smart to enjoy physical love, or fine wine or power over others. Arguably intelligence is more likely to interfere with the pleasures of life, and why bother to seek its extension if not to enjoy those pleasures.

    I suspect they fantasise about being another Rome with all the power over others the rich had there, only now age and death will not rob them of their pleasure.

    You can see why some think that if the “tree of life”, which was closed to them in Eden, is grasped by man then the Apocalypse will be imminent to stop men becoming “Gods”.

    Looking back over history the inhumanity and cruelty of men to men is beyond belief. One theme is very clear throughout that history, how men can regard other men as less than human, or at least less human than themselves and then justify any atrocity against them, we do it ourselves to unborn babies. How cruel could men be to others if they knew they would never die particularly with all the powers of science behind them.

    The extension of “intelligence” is a little dream for little men, moral cowards who blame the problems of the world on intelligence. We fantasise we can fix the world and gain riches and power by being smarter when any fool can see the problems of the world lie in the heart of man.

    Read More
  80. It’s one thing to remedy an existing design flaw that we have the knowledge and capability of correcting, and an entirely different thing to undertake the role of human design. Does anyone believe that human beings have the wisdom and morality to carry out the role of creator/designer of the human race?

    Read More
  81. @Jacques Sheete

    Then…if there are genes for psychopathy, well…I mean, do we really need Ted Bundys?
     
    Fred must've been feeling momentarily charitable; better examples would have been the hag Hillary and the doofus McCain, or practically any other politician.

    As for eugenics, since humans can screw up anything, it's only a matter of time before some moron screws up big time. In fact, get a load of this...


    "Desperate to make use of his limited funding, Ivanov then made the horrific decision to attempt the insemination of African women with chimpanzee sperm without their knowledge. "

    blogs.scientificamerican.com/primate-diaries/stalins-ape-man-superwarriors/
     

    Some say Stalin supported Ivanov in an attempt to create human-ape super warriors. Hey, anything's possible!

    We already have human/ape hybrids. See, e.g., NFL and NBA.

    Read More
  82. @Jus' Sayin'...
    Basically your arguing from revelation, divine, Aristotelian, whatever. Your naive "Aristototelian" analysis would be ripped to shreds in an intro class in Aristotelian philosophy. I remember enough from my freshman course in Aristotle's Metaphysics, taught by Professor Diamandopolous, at Brandeis University, to recognize that. And you've not kept up even with the popularized accounts of what is going on in genomic research these days. So, yes, I am going to dismiss you as an ignorant fool on these topics. Ignorant because you expose yourself as such with every word you've written. And a fool because you do not recognize your own ignorance. I don't know why I even wasted my time writing this.

    I know some relatively dim bulbs who graduated from Brandeis. It’s an overrated institution populated primarily by overly inbred people who harbor delusions of racial supremacy. So your experience at that supposedly impressive institution of higher indoctrination, isn’t all that impressive. Not enough to entitle you to mock and dismiss someone else’s arguments, certainly.

    Another Jew who doesn’t realize his own quite apparent limitations. What a Schande.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jus' Sayin'...
    Actually, I'm an Irish Catholic - there have always been quite a few of us at Brandeis. And Diamandopoulos was a well-known and respected authority on Aristototle. I majored in math when I was at Brandeis. It was ranked as one of the top ten schools in the country at the time. My GREs reflected that. I was in the top 5% on my Math and in the top 1% on the combined verbal and math aptitude. My GRE scores were far from the highest in my graduating class. College friends went on to head up math and physics departments across the country, major reseaqrch institutions and win McArthur fellowships. I doubt you or anyone you know has done nearly as well and based on your wrong assumptions and snide comments I'd bet you blame your inadequacies on some kind of Jewish conspiracy. So I guess I'll write you off as another moron.
  83. This very idea of exploring Science to extend life beyond a century mark is as laughable at best.

    No one, no scientist intentionally chooses STEM fields, hoping they find a cure some days to prolong life on earth. I repeat No One. If one believes they will find a complete cure some day, I’d say they are idiots. Improvements in living conditions over the years have however indeed rendered human life span approaching a century mark.

    The critical question is ”What is Science and what makes scientists enjoy doing what they’re doing?

    We need to get started off with the very basic evolutionary product we have – Brain (a composite of neurons)

    1. Over millions of years, Nature has allowed any creatures with the ability to store past information/events to evolve faster than any other creatures on earth. Our ancestors had possessed that ability. Our cavemen had possessed that ability. Seeing a predator standing in front of you, your brain allows to flashback a single memory of the same kind of predator gorging your fellow creatures flesh, your natural instinct was to flee as far as possible. That’s the marvel of the stored information in our neurons. Either you evolved to run or you’d become a sitting duck is not entirely your choice. The freedom of your choice lies in the evolutionary product – the Brain. If you have a functional brain, you have two choices. If you don’t have a functional one, you have no choice at all.

    You can imagine why people go fishing and still get fish with the same fishing rod, same hook, same bait and happily come over with their fish. You wonder if the fishing technology evolves or if the fish in general evolve in their brain.

    2. Now if we look at the functions of the brain, it can store 1st hand information, but it can also receive 2nd hand information. This ability has given our cavemen to pass information along. Imagine a caveman hunts all day long for his own survival and got one meat. Another caveman with a combination of his forefather knowledge and wild animals habitats, went out for a few hours and came back with plenty at his disposal. Do you honestly think Nature will wipe out the first caveman? The first caveman will keep evolving as long as he can survive. All the while 2nd caveman will evolve to become a tribal chief and populate the territory with his DNA. Nature has favored both, but the most benefits go to creatures with brain.

    3. Evolution is not perfect, but it has a tendency to go zig zag. The amount of wonders the brain can do, people start accumulating all the information they can gather in their brains; religion, tradition, culture, social norms, etc etc etc. The very benefit of stored information is only for survival. Period. If you need to remember how big is the Caitlyn Jenner’s pant size, you will do so. Practicing one own’s religion, tradition has helped humans to stay within kinship and avoid ostracism. It doesn’t matter if it’s true Jesus was reborn, as long as knowing this simple fact and claim you believe in it, can give you an extra leg-up for your own survival in olden days.

    4. Now we see some people are very religious, some are very liberal, and for somehow we also see some with very retarded idea and doing exactly the opposite of what they claim they’re going to do so. We have diverged along the way. The very simple fact and universal truth that one cannot simply resurrect from their dead bodies, cannot convince those religious fanatics. Their beliefs, and their very existence is not borne out of yesterday news. It’s centuries old practice and they will keep it that way. Nature will select whoever can survive. The only question is who will benefit the most.

    5. What’s up to do with Science? Science is the practice of finding new information, storing those information and retest time over again and again until it becomes a scientific fact. The information is fluid. You can either accept or reject based on your own observation, or modify with new information. But to get Science rolling, scientists need funding. So they devise a strategy called “Finding a cure” for general populace. Partially true, but partially wrong also.

    So as an ordinary citizen, you wonder if you’re being tricked from both sides of the world. You can either donate your savings to some Church at the corner of the street or some guys with a huge goggle at the Ivory tower for the purpose of “finding a cure”.

    So far, you know from your 1st hand experience if you catch a cold, you need a Panadol, not “Jesus love you” mantra. If you have an appendicitis, you need a germ-free surgery, not “Thy will be done” proposal.

    No engineer designs to extend life. No physicist tries to prolong life. No scientists imagine living beyond 100 years. One thing for sure, they’re looking for new information that helps to understand what kind of information is the most beneficial to all of us. This information should withstand time. There’s no new information in religion. That’s why scientists enjoy doing science because they’re discovering shit every day. In this case, religion stops looking for new information and get stuck with their 1 inch thick book.

    Read More
  84. “No, he got it right. “For many people, she among them” sounds right while “For many people, her among them” does not. Thus “I among them” not “me among them”.”

    Fred was grammatically wrong, descending to the colloquial when it wasn’t really a good idea. Like I say, the schools are going to hell. Literacy is a fleeting thing.

    Read More
  85. @Fred Reed
    "No, he got it right. “For many people, she among them” sounds right while “For many people, her among them” does not. Thus “I among them” not “me among them”."

    Fred was grammatically wrong, descending to the colloquial when it wasn't really a good idea. Like I say, the schools are going to hell. Literacy is a fleeting thing.

    see!

    we’re all mortal

    ~ Rurik, the corrected’

    Read More
  86. Humans even have a human nature…

    without the precocious socialization and aculturation, seems, human behavior, like we know, even exist.

    We need to solve this question:

    humans without other humans still have the same perceptive potential than a acultured/neuro-typical humans/ aka self-awareness or individuality — relative independence of the environment*

    or without culture and socialization ”we’ will be as primates *

    every behavior obey a universal principle: epicentric hierarchy, from the core to the space.

    wisdom or absolute intelligence start with the knowledge about thyself, just like a domino effect, a stupid person and with liberty to act/access to the power look like a muderous hurricane.

    Read More
  87. We don’t or won’t get to decide and if things continue in the way they are going and there will not be any “us” in 50 years. Transhumanism, AI, radiation from Fukushima, the cumulative damage of spraying (geoengineering), etc. all raise doubts about the continuation of life on a planet where a hostile elite and governments are conducting experiments in labs and on unsuspecting populations that make Mengele look like a Boy Scout. No, even 15 years in the direction and at the rate we are going is doubtful. Nature is being defiled and destroyed and ecocided and the artificial thing intended to replace it is satanic. We will likely not know what hit us and we won’t have the luxury of debating this if we survive. Now I will go back to watching Mark Dice on YouTube asking retarded Californians simple questions they can’t answer that a first grader of my generation could answer, and be happy, at least, that I am not one of them.

    Read More
  88. […] Many have written on the topic over the years, but I like Reed’s comment here: […]

    Read More
  89. @macilrae
    Surely the survival and success of humanity depended in the past upon selecting males for combativeness (works well for elephant seals and musk ox too) which psychologists tell us is a temporary diversion of the sexual urge. In fact all great human achievements are probably ultimately down to the same powerful drive - take that away and you might come out with a race of Elois - people with huge IQ potential but, sadly, very little ... er, "get up and go" (and that includes in the bedroom).

    I am not even sure if these persons would have the energy to finish college or brush their teeth; still less go on and discover or invent something of astounding value to humankind. However, they would be "extremely, extremely" bright - but come to think of it, what proportion of MENSA members are also high achievers in life? My hunch is the percentage is not so great.

    The first guy to make a self sustaining space colony gets a harem. Sounds like a plan.

    Read More
  90. anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @macilrae
    Surely the survival and success of humanity depended in the past upon selecting males for combativeness (works well for elephant seals and musk ox too) which psychologists tell us is a temporary diversion of the sexual urge. In fact all great human achievements are probably ultimately down to the same powerful drive - take that away and you might come out with a race of Elois - people with huge IQ potential but, sadly, very little ... er, "get up and go" (and that includes in the bedroom).

    I am not even sure if these persons would have the energy to finish college or brush their teeth; still less go on and discover or invent something of astounding value to humankind. However, they would be "extremely, extremely" bright - but come to think of it, what proportion of MENSA members are also high achievers in life? My hunch is the percentage is not so great.

    what proportion of MENSA members are also high achievers in life? My hunch is the percentage is not so great
    ===
    MENSA types tend to have some social problems because everyone else around them seems dumb and there are not so many common interests. If the 100IQ average is raised so that today’s MENSA cutoff (130IQ) is more normal much of this problem would be obviated.

    Read More
  91. @Ron Unz

    Two little girls and their father making funny faces and Fred, drunk-fuck inbred that HE is, depicts them as:

    “Appalachian white trash, presenting obvious neurological deficits consequent to inbreeding. A clear argument for eugenics.”

    Exactly what Fred, are you?...I’ll watch for ANON7 to say now, “Aw, shucks, I wuzz only kee-iddin!”. I try to like Fred, but he hates his own race so these days.
     
    Ha, ha, ha...

    You do realize, don't you, that you're looking at a photo of Fred Reed himself and his two young daughters?

    Ha, ha, ha....

    Thing is, Unzo, Fred Reed habitually laughs loudly and derisively at anyone who mentions the Observed Reality that Jews might organize in any way, shape or form against the Gentile world. That’s very alexjones-y of him. I think it’s reasonable for an experienced observer to rather expect decerebrate distortions or outright nonsense to come from Fred Reed.

    If you’re sitting around listening to Fred Reed, I think I have a few haha’s lying around just for you.

    Read More
  92. Why don’t you publish my comments ?? Maybe you are inbred.

    That was a joke, btw.

    Read More
  93. One completely mechanical genetic enhancement algorithm, termed “spell checking” by Gregory Cochran is simply, for each gene loci on all human chromosomes, survey the human population for the most successful allele for that location (determined by population proportion) and segregate all the successful alleles into one individual. This would in theory eliminate all genetic load, and one doesn’t need to know what each gene does.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Timbo
    Could you translate that into English, please?!
  94. When the ugly face of eugenics pops up, joking aside, it is usually at a time when the wealthy and affluent want to start intimating that the wealthy and successful are so because they have superior intellects and the poor and struggling are so because they are intellectually genetically inferior. We know where that led to. It also includes the twin problems of Western civilisation, that of racism and class discrimination.

    Read More
  95. @Cloudswrest
    One completely mechanical genetic enhancement algorithm, termed "spell checking" by Gregory Cochran is simply, for each gene loci on all human chromosomes, survey the human population for the most successful allele for that location (determined by population proportion) and segregate all the successful alleles into one individual. This would in theory eliminate all genetic load, and one doesn't need to know what each gene does.

    Could you translate that into English, please?!

    Read More
  96. Eugenics will never work.. While euthanizing retards may help Trump win, the fact remains that most of life’s miseries originated from the smart elite and their influential representatives,. For one, the irresponsible Federal Reserve Board, the ECB, IMF,, and their greedy colluding bankers have created financial and economic disasters that hurt ordinary people a lot more than a billion retards.. Yea, that includes Krugman the adviser of the Japanese government too.

    True eugenics require euthanization, with emasculation please, of the ruling assholes who ruined the world and mass-murdered innocent citizens of weaker nations.

    Read More
  97. @RadicalCenter
    I know some relatively dim bulbs who graduated from Brandeis. It's an overrated institution populated primarily by overly inbred people who harbor delusions of racial supremacy. So your experience at that supposedly impressive institution of higher indoctrination, isn't all that impressive. Not enough to entitle you to mock and dismiss someone else's arguments, certainly.

    Another Jew who doesn't realize his own quite apparent limitations. What a Schande.

    Actually, I’m an Irish Catholic – there have always been quite a few of us at Brandeis. And Diamandopoulos was a well-known and respected authority on Aristototle. I majored in math when I was at Brandeis. It was ranked as one of the top ten schools in the country at the time. My GREs reflected that. I was in the top 5% on my Math and in the top 1% on the combined verbal and math aptitude. My GRE scores were far from the highest in my graduating class. College friends went on to head up math and physics departments across the country, major reseaqrch institutions and win McArthur fellowships. I doubt you or anyone you know has done nearly as well and based on your wrong assumptions and snide comments I’d bet you blame your inadequacies on some kind of Jewish conspiracy. So I guess I’ll write you off as another moron.

    Read More
  98. @Rdm
    The idea of editing genes sounds fancy and will keep scientists busy at bay for foreseeable future. If you want to see a superhuman, immune to any forms of diseases, capable of climbing Mt.Everest, flying through pacific oceans, you don't need CRISPR to toy with so many genes. We already have all the necessary tools we have here - a diverse array of gene pools. The only roadblock we have is "Monogamy".

    This kind of comment will portend some horny guys contemplating over the possibility of one night stand. Bear with me this one.

    1. Gene editing sounds fancy, but it's not as straightforward as you might expect to see Frankenstein or some muscular guys popping out of human pods and become Captain America. Humans as we see today is not some tiny baker's yeasts that we modify one gene and they become super yeasts. Everything we perceive, every idea we project, the ability to execute our own will are in fact evolutionary products. We evolved to mobile skeletons. Otherwise, we’ll be standing dead trees. We evolved to become thinkers. Otherwise, we’ll be Chimpanzees. But editing one gene or multiples cannot transform a monkey to a human.

    2. The idea of one gene, one protein, one behavior is devised to explain to laymen. But there are millions of genes (ORFs), and some unknown non-coding RNAs which in turn regulate gene expression. Knocking out one gene cannot transform one’s idea from conservatives to liberals or vice versa. How many genes need to be modified to transform some dumbheads to Einstein? It can take millions of years by human experiments. But just let the nature takes it course and we will see one Einstein in every 200 years.

    3. Nature has selected the best. The branching of the evolutionary tracts has produced many variety of species along the way. We see subtle modification in evolution. Evolution has so many directions and keep evolving. That's why we see some humans have better visions, cognitive ability far superior than any of his fellow humans and see the future hundreds years ahead. We also see some retarded dumbo along the way.

    Previously people has judged better people by the look of their physique which translates to better at hunting and providing foods for continual existence. These days in order to survive, you don't need a muscular guy, you need a brainiac to work his way through in this tech era. So Nature now selects your Brain rather than your physique. The energy you consume must go to your brain in any forms of neural synapsis. But Nature has also equipped humans to develop a defense mechanism for its own survival. So those obese and dumbo become aware of their oncoming demise. They devised a strategy called Affirmative Action, Diversity, Food Stamps and ultra-PC to keep them alive. So the energy they consume now occupy in a massive fat-loads of useless DNA under their skin instead of in their brains.

    4. What’s up to do with monogamy? Monogamy only allows one recombination between two opposite humans once in a life time. Any consensual sex, masturbating, jerking off without having kids is basically the society-driven technique we have developed to cheat the Nature. Nature has equipped men to always thinking about sex and copulate with as many partners as possible to populate the environment with any possibility of DNA combination. But we humans devise a defense mechanism along the way to cheat back the nature by any possible means.

    5. Scientists will take years after years to test one gene at a time. But it only takes a toddler 20 years to get married.

    The Chinese, Turkish, Arabic and Indian rulers tried polygamy for thousands of years, and the result has been at best mixed. And, since it was customary for a new dynasty to slaughter all the members of the previous dynasty, the result of such polygamy didn’t benefit humanity too much.

    Read More
  99. The subtitle on the picture that opens up for this article obviously reflects the thoughts of an anti white lib-tard.

    Read More
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Fred Reed Comments via RSS
Personal Classics
Not What Tom Jefferson Had in Mind
Sounds Like A Low-Ranked American University To Me
Very Long, Will Bore Hell Out Of Most People, But I Felt Like Doing It
It's Not A Job. It's An Adventure.
Cloudy, With Possible Tidal Wave